Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Pol Pot

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts the United Kingdom is making in international fora to prevent the return to power in Kampuchea of Mr. Pol Pot.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The surest way to keep Pol Pot and his cronies out of power lies in a political settlement in which Cambodians elect a government of their choice. That is a principal objective of all our policies.

Mr. King: In thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, will he accept that most sane-thinking people would not welcome the return of Pol Pot and his murderers to run that tragic country? What action is being taken to follow my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's proposal that the five main members of the United Nations Security Council should work towards a settlement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend's condemnation of Pol Pot, which is why I expressed our objectives so clearly in my original answer. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's proposal is one of a number of ways in which we are seeking to carry forward the search for a settlement. I discussed the matter a couple of weeks ago with the Chinese Foreign Minister in Tokyo, and it is clear that discussions—for example, between China and the Soviet Union—are helping to advance the process. We have placed the topic on the agenda of the Five at the United Nations and they will carry it forward when they feel that it is appropriate.

Mr. Mullin: Is it not the truth that, far from attempting to prevent the return of Pol Pot, China, America and Thailand—with the active acquiescence of the Government—have spent the past 10 years supplying food, guns and diplomatic recognition to the Khmer Rouge? In what way is that designed to keep the Khmer Rouge out of power?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Britain was, in fact, one of the first to withdraw recognition from the Pol Pot regime. The policy which we and others share at the United Nations and elsewhere on the seating of the coalition Government of democratic Kampuchea does not in any sense mean recognition as a Government or support for Pol Pot. That

is not the position, either, after the United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolution after resolution condemning the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge.

Warsaw Pact

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent political developments in the Warsaw pact countries.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Soviet Union, Poland and Hungary have taken welcome steps to liberalise their political and economic systems. That is in stark contrast to the situation in Czechoslovakia and Romania.
The openness of all countries in eastern Europe will be tested at the negotiations just opened in Vienna.

Mr. Boswell: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree with me that eastern Europe is far from a monolith and that countries are proceeding towards political pluralism at different rates? Will my right hon. Friend support the advance guard, castigate the laggards to whom he has referred and tailor the Government's policies accordingly?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's approach, which is why I drew that distinction in my original answer. The record of Romania for flagrant disregard of her conference on security and co-operation in Europe obligations is the worst in the Warsaw pact. I made that extremely clear when I saw the Romanian Foreign Minister in Vienna on Monday.
The performance of Czechoslovakia is also far from good. We have spoken regularly to the Czech authorities—most recently after the imprisonment of the playwright, Mr. Havel.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I share the Foreign Secretary's welcome for developments, especially in Hungary, but will he ensure that the European Community responds as positively as it can to those developments in encouraging trade between the Community and central European countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. The establishment of relations between the Community and Hungary has gone further than those with any other eastern European country. Hungary established the first trade and co-operation agreement with the Community and is certainly the most worthwhile interlocutor of the Warsaw pact countries.

Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there would be faster political progress in eastern Europe if east European countries were allowed to opt-out of the Warsaw pact?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The important feature is that political progress is taking place in those countries notwithstanding their continued membership of the Warsaw pact. Their membership is a matter for determination between the Governments and it is important that continued membership should not inhibit the progress that is taking place in several of those countries.

Middle East

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British-Israeli relations in the light of the recent visit to Israel by the Minister of State the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave).

Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) to Israel.

Mr. Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): My visit to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan included a constructive discussion of the peace process with my various hosts, and underlined the enduring strength of both Anglo-Israeli and Anglo-Jordanian relations.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Did the Minister have time to discuss with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Itzhak Rabin, his plan to hold democratic elections in the West Bank to provide some suitable representatives of the Palestinian people with whom talks can proceed?

Mr. Waldegrave: I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister who is Mr. Arens, not Mr. Rabin. Mr. Rabin's plan was one of the principal topics of the detailed discussions that I had and we talked through the implications of it with the Palestinians and with the Israeli Government. The Palestinians, as is well known, are extremely suspicious of moves that they see as involving them in elections that would not be properly free.

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend's efforts for peace in the middle east will be warmly welcomed by all sides of the House. While true friends of Israel have never been afraid to offer home truths to that country, does my hon. Friend recognise that the same should also be true of those who are counselling the rather recently converted Palestinian Liberation Organisation? Does he agree that it should be urged to use all its influence to prevent further disturbances on the West Bank and in Gaza because true evidence of peaceful intent will be needed to convince understandably cautious Israeli public opinion?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is very important to urge restraint on all sides. I make a distinction between military, armed terrorist activity, which is out of the question and which I urge the PLO leaders to condemn—we all know that there are factions within the Palestinian movement which are trying to undermine the new, more moderate position of Mr. Arafat—and the intifada. I made it clear to all the Palestinian leaders that I met that the intifada should be pursued with the utmost restraint, but I believe that it is an expression of solidarity among Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza, which no single man could, of his own will, call off.

Mr. Nellist: No doubt the Minister is aware that I was in Israel and the occupied territories in the week preceding his visit—we probably crossed at Ben Gurion airport. Apart from the slightly dubious pleasure of being detained and questioned for an hour by senior intelligence officers

from Shin Bet at the Ramla maximum security prison I spent much of my time talking to doctors on the West Bank. When the Minister met Defence Minister Rabin did he express to him the outrage felt by working people in this country about the iron-fist policy pursued in the territories? That policy has resulted in seven Israeli soldiers being injured, one being tragically killed, and 11 Israeli citizens killed, compared with more than 400 Palestinians killed and 20,000 injured. That figure includes a six-year-old girl from the Gaza Strip who was shot in the head when I was there. Did the Minister express the outrage felt by working people in this country about that occupation policy?

Mr. Waldegrave: I congratulate the hon. Member on his escape. In the past we have made protests, and I made further protests, about the handling of the intifada. When I was there I visited Nablus, which was under total curfew. By chance on the same day the Israeli Prime Minister described the West Bank as being "liberated", which seemed a little bizarre to me.

Sir Dennis Walters: The United States Secretary of State was reported the other day as having said in Vienna that the time was not yet ripe for a middle east peace conference. Will my hon. Friend and the British Government do everything in their power to persuade the United States that after 22 years of illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and increasing repression of great brutality, the time for such a conference is not only ripe but over-ripe?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is the responsibility of all who wish to see a successful outcome that we do not raise impossible expectations of the speed with which events will unfold. We all want to see progress, but it is obvious that the United States will take some time to formulate their position and any moves, towards a conference or anything else, must be carefully prepared. I made that point to Palestinians and they were receptive to them.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that, unlike any other country in the area, the Israeli Government are accountable to the electorate? Even if, as in Britain, the electorate makes a most serious mistake, its views must be taken into account. In those circumstances, will the Minister consider, if and when he again visits the middle east, that it will help a Government to come to the negotiating table if a person who comes as a visitor to that country does not criticise publicly the Government who receive him within that country and in a neighbouring country?

Mr. Waldegrave: I make the distinction that Her Majesty's Government have made it clear in the past that the intifada is being mishandled, that serious mistakes are being made and unnecessary suffering is being caused. I did not, however, spend my time criticising Israeli policy in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman described. My host, Netanyahu, described our meetings as being a friendly non-meeting of minds. That is more or less the truth.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Did my hon. Friend, on his very impressive visit to the middle east, discover whether the current Israeli Government accept resolution 242? In view of our Government's justified insistence on obtaining from Mr. Arafat a pledge that he accepts resolution 242, will


they, before or during talks with Mr. Shamir, establish clearly that he pledges himself to the implementation of that United Nations resolution?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the new complexities. Within the broadly based current Israeli Government—a Government of national unity—there is, clearly, a variety of positions on that point. Mr. Shamir is on record as saying that the return of Sinai meets resolution 242. That is not the view of others in the Government and it is not the view of Her Majesty's Government. I am not sure that I am much the wiser on that point.

Mr. Steel: May I congratulate the Minister on his constructive visit to the middle east? In view of the depressingly negative utterances of Mr. Shamir on peace prospects, do the Government have it in mind to revive the European Community initiative?

Mr. Waldegrave: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the troika of the European Community has been conducting useful discussions and has met Mr. Shevardnadze, which was a new and welcome development. All our efforts are made within the framework of European Community policy and we are not trying to launch a private initiative of our own. We shall be discussing and mutually sharing the results of a variety of recent visits by Community leaders to the area.

Mr. Latham: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his helpful, valuable and constructive visit to the middle east? Will he emphasise that perhaps the important visit and meeting recently has been between Mr. Arens and Mr. Shevardnadze? Is it not essential, if the Soviet Union is to continue to take a constructive role in middle eastern matters, that it should re-establish diplomatic relations with Israel as soon as possible?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am especially grateful for the support of my hon. Friend. He is right to say that that was an important meeting. Mr. Arens gave me a full account of it, for which I was grateful. Although there were many positive aspects to the speech that Mr. Shevardnadze made the next day, Her Majesty's Government do not find easy to accept one or two aspects of it, such as the question mark raised by the legitimate existence of Israel being made conditional on the acceptance of the rights of Palestinians. That was not helpful—nor was talk of sanctions against Israel. However, we welcome elements of current Soviet policy, such as the steady move towards multilateral talks, the pragmatic approach and the helpful pressure which, to some extent, Mr. Shevardnadze put on Syria.

Mr. Kaufman: During his visit to Israel, did the hon. Gentleman learn, as I did two weeks ago when I addressed a conference of 1,000 Israelis in Jerusalem, that a growing body of Israeli Jews favour dialogue with the PLO, as was shown by the 53 per cent. in the latest opinion poll who say that they want that? Does he agree with Mr. Abba Eban, who said at the conference that I addressed, that it is a remarkable innovation for one country—Israel—to seek to nominate not only its own participants in the negotiations but those of the other side also? Does he further agree that Mr. Shamir's truculent attitude in his interview on BBC television is not only damaging to Palestinian interests but to Israeli interests, and that the

only sure way of ensuring Israel security is not to suppress Palestinians by force but to talk to Palestinians about making peace?

Mr. Waldegrave: Once again, I associate myself fully with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I met many people in Israel who were open-minded when discussing practical ways forward and who wished for a sense of movement in Israeli policy. I also met many within the Likud who said the same thing. There is a prospect of movement in Israeli policy and the best way for those who are friends of Israel to foster that is not to talk in terms of pressure or sanctions against Israel, but to work with those who are leading the way in that direction in Israel. I took the precaution of having lunch with Mr. Abba Eban before going to Israel, although his name is something of a red rag to the present Israeli Foreign Ministry, and he said many wise things to me that were along the lines quoted by the right hon. Gentleman.

Vietnamese Refugees

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other Governments in order to resolve the problem of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have recently made representations to 21 resettlement countries urging them to increase the number of Vietnamese refugees they are prepared to take from Hong Kong. We have ourselves undertaken to resettle an additional 1,000 Vietnamese refugees in Britain, and have secured significantly increased commitments from other countries at the same time.

Mr. Grant: Given the Chinese Government's insistence that the problem should be resolved before 1997, when Hong Kong reverts to Chinese sovereignty, what timetable does the Secretary of State have in mind for dealing with the remaining 10,000 refugees in Hong Kong? Will he give the House an assurance today that there will be no compulsory repatriations of any refugees?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Clearly, it must be the intention of us all to ensure that the problem of the Vietnamese boat people has been resolved well before 1997. It is a topic in which the Chinese Government have taken a helpful interest in some respects. They have taken back to China a number of refugees of Vietnamese origin. They are also doing all that they can to encourage boat people en route not to proceed with their journey along the south China coast towards Hong Kong because it is important to check the inflow which has threatened to overwhelm Hong Kong in recent months. It was for that reason that we introduced the screening policy and those who have been identified as non-refugees have no prospect of resettlement elsewhere. Therefore, unless they are to stay indefinitely in detention centres in Hong Kong—they are being improved as much as possible—it must be recognised that their long-term future rests in Vietnam.

Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay tribute to the moderation with which the Government and people of Hong Kong have dealt with this difficult problem? Does he know of many countries that are nowadays prepared to allow unlimited immigration to economic migrants? Will he confirm that the screening of the economic migrants from the genuine refugees and the


repatriation of the economic migrants will be conducted in consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Hong Kong Government and people for the way in which they have accommodated a massive increase in the number of arrivals. About 18,000 people arrived in 1988. That has put a major strain on their resources and they have responded with voluntary as well as governmental help on a magnificent scale. As I said, they are bringing forward their programme to liberalise conditions for those who have been accorded refugee status and to move residents away from unacceptable buildings which still exist.
The screening policy has been introduced after consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is being conducted in accordance with guidelines worked out with that organisation, and it is important for us to continue doing that. The same kind of policy is now being adopted in other parts of the world, not least in the United States in relation to arrivals from central America.

Mr. Eastham: I note the Foreign Secretary's remarks about the increased numbers whom the United Kingdom is prepared to take. May I, on behalf of the small number of refugees who have been accepted by this country, make a special plea on behalf of families who are divided? Hon. Members will be aware of the representations that we receive from families who have been divided for eight or 10 years and who are still waiting for permission to be reunited. Will special attention be paid, in relation to the additional 1,000 whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, to the need, where possible, to reunite families, especially those who have been divided for many years?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's humanitarian concern. The commitment of which I reminded the House represents a doubling in the rate of acceptance of Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong into the United Kingdom. Since 1975, we have taken about 20,000 Indo-Chinese refugees of whom 13,000 were Vietnamese from Hong Kong. Only the United States and Canada have taken more, so we have made a substantial contribution.
As for particular cases of reunification, our proposed new commitment would widen the eligibility criteria for resettlement cases, but specific cases would need to be considered by the Home Secretary.

Sir Hal Miller: In relation to the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in Hong Kong have difficulty in understanding how those people are admitted when refugees—if that is the right description; "would-be entrants" might be a more neutral term—from China, including their own kith and kin, are not admitted and, if found, are deported?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That factor is powerfully in the minds of the people of Hong Kong. A substantial number of arrivals from what is called mainland Hong Kong are returned to China each year. That happens, I have no doubt, because of the recognition of the severe overcrowding in Hong Kong. For that reason, such an urgent case was presented by the Government and people

of Hong Kong for us to do something in the face of the dramatic inflow of Vietnamese boat people. We have done something; we have introduced the new policy for screening out the non-refugees and we have enhanced our willingness to accept them.

Cocaine

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what co-operation is being achieved through the United Nations to tackle the threats from international trafficking in cocaine.

Mr. Eggar: A United Nations convention against illicit drug trafficking adopted last December will strengthen international co-operation to combat cocaine trafficking. The United Nations fund for drug abuse control finances major assistance programmes in all the principal cocaine producer countries.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is important for the Government to seek the consent and agreement of foreign Governments to reach agreement on taking the assets of drug traffickers? What success, if any, have the British Government had in getting bilateral agreement with other Governments to put a stop to this vile trade?

Mr. Eggar: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In fact, we have already signed six such agreements, the last one being at 10.30 am today when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary signed an agreement with Switzerland. We are in the process of negotiating with 20 other countries and we are in contact with another 20. During my recent visit to Guatemala and Costa Rica I had discussions with the authorities about the possibility of reaching agreement with them.

Mr. Rathbone: While I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on the lead they have given internationally in controlling drug trafficking, can my hon. Friend tell us what efforts have been made particularly to encourage other European and Commonwealth countries to sign the United Nations convention?

Mr. Eggar: We constantly point out the need to sign to the relatively few countries that have not signed. Some 43 countries signed when the convention became available. I also had discussions with central American and Latin American Governments about the need to move towards ratification of the convention as soon as possible. With regard to other co-operation with the United Nations, next week my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will meet Miss Joan Anstee, who is in charge of United Nations bodies in Vienna connected with the fight against drugs.

Nicaragua

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that the Nicaraguan Government are committed to introducing democracy.

Mr. Eggar: The Nicaraguan Government committed themselves in the Esquipulas agreement to introduce democracy. On 14 February President Ortega freely


entered into further specific undertakings to introduce democracy. It remains to be seen if those commitments will now at last be fulfilled.

Mr. Martin: In so far as Her Majesty's Government can exert pressure on the Nicaraguan Government, will my hon. Friend continue to impress upon them that we shall take those pretensions to democracy more seriously when the rights of opposition parties are respected in that country?

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Nicaraguan Government have committed themselves, in the Esquipulas agreement and on many subsequent occasions, to introducing democracy. Their record so far has not been impressive. Indeed, it is significant that they have not succeeded in introducing democracy. That significance is recognised by the fact that President Ortega himself had to enter into specific agreements in the San Salvador agreement.

Mrs. Mahon: The Minister spoke of the Esquipulas agreement. What pressure did he bring to bear on the Government of Guatemala on his recent visit to central America about their gross violations of human rights and the need for them to keep to that agreement?

Mr. Eggar: I had extensive talks on human rights with both the Foreign Minister and the Home Minister of Guatemala. I also met the human rights procurator. We were requested by the Guatemalan Government to help them by providing assistance on human rights matters. I discussed with them the conclusion of the United Nations special expert who has recently reported to the human rights commission that in his view there is no intention by the Guatemalan Government to abuse human rights.

Mr. Foulkes: Since the Nicaraguan Government declared a ceasefire, they have engaged in constructive dialogue with all opposition forces, and they have allowed even the hypercritical La Prensa to publish freely; above all, they have brought forward free elections to February 1990, fulfilling all the requirements of the central American peace plan. Is it not extremely unfortunate that last week in San Pedro Sula, as he has done again today, the Under-Secretary of State repeated parrot fashion an out-of-date Washington line? Will he now at last get up to date, recognise the progress in Nicaragua, support the peace plan and the peace initiative, help to ensure that the Americans stop aid to Contra terrorists and ensure that all the Contras are removed from Honduras as quickly as possible?

Mr. Eggar: Of course Her Majesty's Government support the peace process. That is why we signed the agreements following the San Pedro Sula conference. Under the Nicaraguan constitution, the army, the police and the judiciary owe allegiance not to the state but to the Sandinista party. It is perfectly reasonable for me to point out that that is not in accord with what I understand by democracy and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not agree.

France

Mr. Gow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current Anglo-French relations.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had useful talks with President Mitterrand at the Anglo-French summit meeting in Paris on 27 February. The two Governments consult closely on a wide range of issues. There are numerous ministerial and other contacts between the two countries.

Mr. Gow: Was it not General de Gaulle who described the proper structure of the European Community as "Europe des patries"? Would not the general have approved warmly of the Prime Minister's speech at Bruges? Is my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the Bruges speech matched by that of the present President of France?

Mrs. Chalker: I note the comparison that my hon. Friend makes, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it quite clear at Bruges that Britain's destiny is in Europe. I am not quite sure whether General de Gaulle always saw things in quite the same way. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we must concentrate on practical matters, working for greater unity but avoiding restrictive uniformity. Perhaps President. Mitterrand might agree with that rather more than President de Gaulle did.

Mr. Ron Brown: Did the Minister raise the question of France's soaring rates bill, running into thousands of pounds for property owned in London? Did she mention that debt, bearing in mind that in Scotland individuals who refuse to pay the poll tax receive threats to seize their property and arrest their wages? Does she intend to have a warrant sale at the French embassy?

Mrs. Chalker: I am quite sure that if the French Government owe the British Government any money it will be paid. We shall ensure that it is.

Mr. Curry: While I welcome the recent agreement for the exchange of officials between Britain and France, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the degree of co-operation between Britain and France and Britain and Germany is a shadow of the co-operation between France and Germany? Will she take all possible steps to improve the quality and extent of that co-operation?

Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, Sir. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that an exchange of diplomats at first secretary level is starting in the autumn. I hope that that will be increased and that we shall have not only diplomatic exchanges between the two countries but business exchanges, scholarly exchanges, which already exist, and exchanges between schoolchildren.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Lady described the Prime Minister's talks with President Mitterrand as useful. Was it not indeed useful that President Mitterrand sent the Prime Minister away with a flea in her ear when she tried to enlist him in her dangerous cause to modernise short-range nuclear weapons to circumvent the INF treaty? Is it not equally satisfactory that Chancellor Kohl has given the Prime Minister the same unceremonious brush-off? Why is Britain's the only Government in NATO or the Warsaw pact who are actively planning to increase the world's stock of nuclear weapons?

Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has been concentrating so much on the middle


east recently that he has missed something. France is currently modernising her own short-range nuclear missiles. Like us, she understands that obsolete weapons do not deter, and President Mitterrand said at the summit that NATO should modernise if the Soviets are doing so. The Soviet Union has conducted a massive modernisation of nuclear forces during the past decade and I have absolutely no doubt that France is pursuing her policy of deterrence in a sensible way, just as we are.

Consular Assistance

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens detained abroad required consular help in 1988; how many of these faced criminal charges; and what was the total cost of providing assistance.

Mr. Eggar: One thousand, eight hundred and fifty two British citizens were reported to us as having been arrested in 1988 on criminal charges, including 441 in connection with drugs. Those detained briefly for minor offences are often not reported to us. No specific figures are available on the total cost of consular assistance in those cases.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the British people are sick and tired of lager louts, layabouts and hooligans dragging the name of this country through the gutters of the world? Is it not about time that those layabouts who seek consular services paid for those services through direct debits from their wage packets, their social security payments or from their parents and so removed the burden from the taxpayer once and for all?

Mr. Eggar: I understand my hon. Friend's very strong feelings about this matter. A very small minority of British citizens behave disgracefully abroad and give the country a bad name while making life difficult for other British tourists in the same resorts. I have made it clear on many occasions that with regard to requests for consular services, we will put people who have got into trouble as a result of their own activities at the bottom of the list and we will help those who really need help first.

Mr. Heffer: When the Minister considers these problems, will he distinguish between the lager louts from Tory areas in this country and genuine people who may get into difficulties and who are in no way connected with the lager louts from the Conservative areas of this country?

Mr. Eggar: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we help those who need our help.

Namibia

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 435.

Mrs. Chalker: We look forward to implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, which is due to begin on 1 April. We are contributing a signals unit to the United Nations transition assistance group.

Mr. Colvin: The House will be aware of the importance of so-called linkage in connection with the implementation of resolution 435—namely the withdrawal of Cuban and South African troops from Angola. The South Africans have gone. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that 70 United Nations observers under the leadership of a Brazilian general are sufficient to verify the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola? Does she see any role for the United Kingdom—which is impartial with regard to Angola—as head of the Commonwealth, in the process which will lead to reconciliation in Angola and to free and fair elections in that country, which we all want to see?

Mrs. Chalker: The United Nation's secretary-general recommended that the United Nation's Angola verification mission—UNAVEM—should consist of 70 monitors. We have full confidence in his judgment that UNAVEM can verify the withdrawal. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of peace in Angola. It is very difficult to see how lasting peace can be achieved without internal reconciliation. We continue to be in touch with all the African leaders who are best placed to mediate in this matter and we hope that there will be reconciliation soon.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister assure us that she is maintaining the closest possible contact with the changing leadership in South Africa to ensure that genuine Namibian independence can be secured and that that can be the first positive step towards further genuine moves to ending apartheid in South Africa?

Mrs. Chalker: Yes indeed. We shall monitor what happens very carefully, because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we believe that a successful progression to independence in Namibia may give us further clues about the way in which apartheid can be ended all the faster in South Africa.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assist in the holding of an informal forum or meeting of all the parties that will be contesting elections in Namibia prior to the election process getting under way, particularly if there is considerable support from many countries throughout the world for the holding of such an informal conference as a way of achieving national reconciliation in Namibia before the election campaign gets under way? Will the United Kingdom encourage such a development and perhaps facilitate the holding of such an informal conference?

Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure whether the United Kingdom has the specific role that my hon. Friend suggested. We understand that there may be as many as 46 parties campaigning in the Namibian elections and I honestly do not know whether, with refugees returning to Namibia all the time, it will be possible even to arrange an informal forum such as he suggested. The important thing is that the observers who will be there—all 800 of them, compared with the 460 originally envisaged—ensure that there are free and fair elections. Another 1,150 civilian monitors will be present during the election campaign. Given those preparations, and because we so much want independent Namibia to be a success, it would not be right to prescribe a special sort of conference, which, as my hon. Friend well knows, was not part of United Nations Security Council resolution 435.

Miss Lestor: Is the right hon. Lady aware that two of her hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and I have just returned from a conference in Madrid that was held by western European parliamentarians of all parties and members of the front-line states, at which much concern was expressed about South Africa's biased activities against SWAPO in relation to these elections? It is very important to have observers not only at the time of the elections but between now and the elections, and that many people go to observe what is taking place both before and after the elections, up until April when the process is finalised.

Mrs. Chalker: I am most interested to hear what the hon. Lady says. I hope that she will tell me in detail about the conference that she attended in Spain. I am well aware of the allegations. As she knows, the implementation of the United Nations plan is a matter for the United Nations secretary-general and his staff, in whom we have every confidence. We have seen the SWAPO reports and have also heard a number of other reports about what may be going on. It is important that the negotiations, which have established a joint commission to investigate these allegations, be allowed to continue. The joint commission should look into all allegations in order to ensure free and fair elections, which we all want.

Israel

Mr. Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations.

Mr. Waldegrave: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).

Mr. Norris: I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend on his conduct during his recent visit to Israel. It would be a tragedy if the attitude of the Government were interpreted in Israel as either deliberately combative or unhelpful. The Government's attitude should be—and I understand that it is—based on the profound belief that long-lasting security for Israel will be achieved only through a peaceful solution. In that context, when Mr. Shamir refers to the occupied territories as the liberated territories, he moves back the peace process.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is absolutely essential that those who wish to help in this area do not contribute to the sense of isolation in Israel, which sometimes causes the problem. Those who wish to take forward the peace process must be able to assure Israel that there is no question about her security. We find it difficult to understand why a peace structure based on treaty with her neighbours, together with her formidable armaments, will not enhance her security, and why it should undermine it.

Mr. Galloway: Does the Minister accept that, with the possible exception of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the whole House was greatly impressed by, and admired the skill, clarity and courage of, the statements that the hon. Gentleman made on his trip to the occupied territories? He

walked there in the distinguished footsteps of his predecessor—the present Minister of State, Department of Health—and more than filled his shoes.
In spite of what the Minister said about a perceived danger of Israel feeling a sense of isolation, is it not clear that the words that he spoke in Israel and which the Government continually speak about this issue are falling on deaf ears? How many more deaths, how many more broken bones and how many more snubs to British Tory Ministers will it take before the Government decide to get a little tougher with Israel to push it to the negotiating table?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not want to misinterpret the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who does not seem to disagree with the content. of what I am saying but wants to monopolise its expression himself. I repeat what I said earlier: I do not believe that it is a matter of exerting pressure or threats against Israel. The one thing that Israelis do not respond to is threats. On the other hand, those who really want a secure and permanent future for Israel should not be backward about trying to follow through the arguments to explain why we take a different view from that of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

Mr. Dykes: At the risk of overdoing the praise, which is justified, may I add my words of congratulation on my hon. Friend's outstanding and memorable visit to Israel? He struck a balance between obvious sympathy for the historical and actual position of Israel and the need to persuade the Israeli authorities to take the peace process further.
Was my hon. Friend able to convey to the Israeli Government the essential truth that if a proper international peace is achieved, Israel will have a 1,000 per cent. guarantee of its total security in the future, as opposed to being at odds with the entire international community?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. All who have the long-term interests of Israel at heart should be saying what he said, which is that she can exist in a fortress of armaments only for a limited time. Doubtless she can exist like that for many years, but permanent peace and the freeing of all the talent that Israel now has to put into armaments for channelling into all the other things that David Ben Gurion and others saw as the real vision for Israel all depend on Israel working with her neighbours.

Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that some of us who have consistently supported Israel's right to peace and secure borders over the years are sad that the Israelis have not responded to Yasser Arafat's declaration, thereby giving some of the more extremist elements in the PLO the grounds on which to begin activities against Israel, when there could have been serious peace discussions in the middle east?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point. There are extremist factions, some of them backed by Syria, who have an interest in the failure of what Mr. Arafat has done. It seems to the Government—and, I think, the Opposition—that it was right to welcome the steps that the PLO took, because we have both been urging it to take them


for many years. If we had not responded, that would have been an incentive to the extremists, so I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

EC Budget

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards implementing the measures agreed at the Brussels summit of February 1988 to control the growth of the European Community's budget.

Mrs. Chalker: The 1989 Community budget included CAP provision some £1,320 million less than the agricultural guideline. Own resources called up for the budget were substantially below the relevant sub-ceiling in the new own resources decision.

Mr. Tredinnick: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the inquiries being conducted by the Government into allegations of widespread fraud within the common agricultural policy? Will she give some indication also of the pressure that she intends putting on our European partners when that fraud is discovered, to ensure that prosecutions take place?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend will have noticed the comments of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General in the House last Thursday, and my own comments in a debate on 23 February. On both occasions, we sought to give more detail. We are working on further suggestions for seeking out fraud and stopping it. It is important not only to detect but deter. The Court of Auditors' report highlights the problems of fraud, and we shall support all cost-effective measures against fraud in the Community, wherever it may be. That is why we are making concrete suggestions to counsel for combating both fraud and the mismanagement of resources.

Mr. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that acceptance of the super-generous Brussels budget deal was inextricably tied up with the drive to completing the 1992 internal market? Does the Minister agree with Sir John Hoskyns who, in a speech last week at the Institute of Directors, called a social dimension to 1992
a nonsense and Sixties-style social engineering"?
Or does the right hon. Lady prefer the view of the London ambassador for the most prosperous country in Europe, West Germany, who called for
a European charter of fundamental social rights, including collective bargaining autonomy, freedom of association, and sex equality"?
Is the Minister on the side of the dinosaurs or of the economically powerful?

Mrs. Chalker: The Government have always been on the side of economic strengths. Many of the comments made in Sir John Hoskyns' speech to the Institute of Directors seemed to discourage business from preparing for the changes of 1992. If they have done that, the speech did no service to Britain. Of course we must right those things that are wrong. However, the most important part of the single market programme is moving ahead to dismantle barriers. There is no sense in imposing regulations on business that will deter the creation of employment and job opportunities. If we are to have a sensible social dimension in Europe, there must be wider access to training and retraining, better standards of training and retraining, implementation of the health and

safety at work directive agreed last December, equal treatment in social security, and free movement of labour. Having rolled back the frontiers of Socialism in Britain, there is no way that we will see them re-established in Brussels.

Mr. William Powell: Can my right hon. Friend say how much fraud against the EEC has taken place within the frontiers of the United Kingdom, and how many prosecutions of United Kingdom nationals have occurred for fraud involving EEC budgets?

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot give my hon. Friend such details without notice. I shall write to him with the details that are known. Figures mentioned in the press have been highly speculative. We do not doubt that very large sums have been involved across the Community as a whole, and that fraud is a serious problem. The nature of the fraud means that it is impossible to give precise figures now, but action must be taken all the way to reduce such frauds to a minimum. Even if I cannot give my hon. Friend the details that he wishes, he should be in no doubt about our recognition of the need for action and our determination to take it.

Afghanistan

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Afghanistan.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We welcome the withdrawal of Soviet troops. The unrepresentative regime installed and armed by the Russians remains in place. We believe that it should go now, so that bloodshed can end and a representative Government can take office.

Mr. Cohen: Why are the Government backing a rag-bag group of terrorists who, if they ever achieve power—God forbid—would be a deadly cocktail of the Ayatollah and Pol Pot? Now that the Russians have left, will the Government stop arming that group of fanatics and terrorists and instead get on friendlier terms with the authorities to try to deliver Afghanistan from war and feudalism rather than leaving it to endure incessant hostilities?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's perception of the matter is wholly at fault. The Government who are still clinging to power in Kabul and who were installed and armed by the Russians, against the wishes of the great majority of Afghans, represent virtually nobody but themselves and control virtually nothing outside Kabul. It is only when that Government step down and allow the Afghans to choose a Government representative of the Afghan people that the fighting will come to an end. That is what we all want to see.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government of Mr. Najibullah have blood on their hands from the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Afghanistan or driven into refugee camps in Pakistan during the Soviet occupation? Will my right hon. and learned Friend work closely with the Government of Pakistan to try to restore order to that region?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree entirely with the hon. Friend. The Najibullah Government have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousand of Afghans and have driven millions of them to refugee status. It is only when

that Government step down and make way for a Government who represent the Afghan people as a whole that there will be a prospect for the peace that we all want in that tragic country.

Iran (Diplomatic Relations)

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the breaking off of diplomatic relations by Iran.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Iranian Government broke diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom on 7 March. I told the House on 21 February that in face of the incitement to murder proclaimed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, we were closing our embassy in Tehran and had asked the Iranian Government to withdraw their chargé d'affaires and the one other Iranian-based member of his staff from London. They left on 28 February.
We have made clear throughout that, as with any other country, normal relations between Britain and Iran must depend on Iran's fulfilment of her international obligations, in particular by renouncing the use or threat of violence against our citizens. Iran has not withdrawn those threats. We have therefore decided that on security grounds, a number of Iranians must be required to leave this country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will shortly be giving notice to that effect. We are keeping the activities of other Iranians under very close review and further action will be taken as necessary. The Iranian Government have until now maintained a consulate-general in Hong Kong. They have been told to close the consulate-general. Its staff have been given two weeks in which to leave.

Mr. Kaufman: I welcome the response by the Foreign Secretary and the action that he has announced. That has our full support and the Foreign Secretary also has our full support for refusing to make any kind of deal with Iran until that country's regime withdraws its monstrous death threat against Mr. Rushdie. Deplorably, that threat has now been reaffirmed by the President of Iran.
Does the Foreign Secretary share our satisfaction that, apart from Libya, no Government of a Moslem country has endorsed the death threat? Although we do not have to agree with everything that it says, the attitude of the Islamic world is much more accurately reflected in the calm and balanced tone of the statement by the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what arrangements are being made to keep in touch with and protect the interests of Mr. Roger Cooper, whose family must, understandably, be extremely worried about his welfare and safety, especially in the light of the deplorable cancellation by the Iranian authorities of a Swedish consular visit to him that should have taken place yesterday?
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, far from the United Kingdom caving in to any ultimatum from Iran, it is the Government of Iran who must prove themselves fit to resume diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman's last point is at the heart of this matter. That view is widely supported in the world. Not the least important feature is the extent to which it is supported by Governments of Moslem countries as well as by Governments in the rest of the world. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support

for that. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Cooper. We are greatly and continuously concerned about the prospects for his future, as well as about the prospects of freedom for the British hostages who are still detained. We deplore the refusal by the Iranian Government to allow the consular visit to Roger Cooper which was arranged only a short time ago. They have broken the undertaking to allow such a visit. We shall therefore continue to press for consular access through the Teheran embassy of Sweden, our protecting power, whose support in this matter, as in others, we greatly value.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he deserves universal support for the measures that he has had to take in in respect of this regrettable matter? Does he agree that the key, so far as elements within Iran are concerned, is international solidarity? Will he do his utmost to preserve the lead that the European Community has given? Does he accept that, in a very difficult situation, he deserves some congratulation for demonstrating understanding of the insult that this book represents to the Moslem world—going far beyond the Ayatollah Khomeini and what he stands for? Finally, does he accept that, much as we all like to make interventions in this House and elsewhere, a period of calm would perhaps be beneficial to all in efforts to solve this matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I accept all the points that have been made by my hon. Friend. The most important feature of the case, perhaps, is the strong, unified signal to the people and Government of Iran that came so promptly from the European Community—a signal that has been so widely supported elsewhere. That has been fortified by the generally calm approach by other Islamic countries and, equally, by the willingness of Islamic communities in Britain to recognise the importance of different communities in a country respecting each other's point of view. Only when general recognition, in a tolerant fashion, of the need for co-existence in a world of different religions is accepted by the Government of Iran will we be able to move towards a return to normal relations.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary accept from Members on these Benches support for the actions he has had to take? Will the Government continue to make it clear that, in upholding the absolute freedom to write and to publish, they are not signifying any approval of a book that many of us recognise is deeply offensive to Islam, not least to the Moslem population of this country? We accept that no Government can possibly tolerate a threat to the lives of its individual citizens and that the breach of diplomatic relations was therefore inevitable. However, we hope that normality may be resumed once passions have cooled.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. The Government will continue to uphold the freedom of speech within the law, upon a rock-solid basis. That does not mean that either the Government or this House, or any hon. Member, is required to condone or defend any particular book. I fully understand the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed himself on this matter.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a particular


welcome from the Government side of the House for the support he has received from both right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have intervened? Their comments will help to make it clear to the rulers of Iran that there is agreement in the House and in this country that there can be no question of resuming normal relations with Iran while a British subject is under threat of assassination from that country's Government.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Once again, I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend, as well as to the hon. and right hon. Gentleman whom he has identified. On this matter they all speak for the entire House, and it is important that there should be no room for doubt about that.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that this country has no quarrel at all with the people of Iran—only with its rulers, a regime which has shown total contempt for international law? Is it not the case that, within the last few months alone, thousands, literally thousands, of political prisoners in Iran have been executed, many of them—the large majority, I assume—devout followers of Islam? Would it not be wise for the rulers in Iran to bear in mind the number of dictators and tyrants in this century who have under-estimated the will and resilience of this country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Once again, I am glad to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Quite aside from the respect that we have for the people of Iran, we join the hon. Member in leaving the Iranian authorities in no doubt whatsoever about our grave concern over the abuses of human rights that are taking place there. I refer in particular to the recent allegations of mass exterminations.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: While strongly supporting the attempts of my right hon. and learned Friend, not only in recent weeks but over the last year, to restore relations between our two countries, may I ask whether he does not agree that, in the long run, it is important to both that we have a civilised means of communicating with each other? Can we not take some comfort from the fact that Iran needs Britain far more than Britain needs Iran?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is clear that, in a civilised and well-ordered world, there should be relations between countries of the importance of Iran and the United Kingdom, not least taking account of the fact that the United Kingdom is one of the permanent members of the Security Council and, in that capacity, played a substantial part in helping to bring to an end the conflict in which the people of Iran were so tragically engaged. It is because we wish to keep open the possibility of restoring representation between our two countries that we refrained from breaking relations in the hope that wiser counsels might prevail. That has not happened. We shall have to wait for a change of heart, as my hon. Friend pointed out.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In addition to the protection that has quite rightly been offered to Salman Rushdie, will the Foreign Secretary contact his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ensure that similar protection is given to any Iranians living in this country who are likely to be the subject of attacks by agents acting on behalf of the Iranian Government? Is he aware that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) pointed out, over 3,000 people have

been executed for political activities in Iran since the ceasefire took place, and many more are on death row at present?
It is essential that everyone stands up against the Iranian Government for what they are doing to the people of Iran and the people of the rest of the world. In that sense, it would be totally wrong for any trade with that country to take place, any credits to be given to it and, above all, any sales of any arms by any other country which could be used as part of the political repression that is the awful lot of so many people in Iran at present.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the whole world is as disturbed as the hon. Gentleman by the continuing record of abuse of human rights in that country and joins us in condemning it, as I have already done. Likewise, the whole House would agree with the hon. Gentleman that anyone living in this country, lawfully here and abiding by our laws and institutions, is entitled to the full protection of the law against threats or the actuality of violence.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a tragedy that the rulers of the people of Iran should behave in such an intolerable way? Is not the solution for us to wait until they can elect some new leaders?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to have as much confidence as my hon. Friend about the method by which a change of Government will take place there. The Iranian people are entitled to a Government of higher quality than the present deplorable regime.

Mr. Stan Crowther: In view of what he has said about the world being disturbed, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the time has come to break off all relations with Iran—not only diplomatic but commercial relations—as long as that appalling regime is in power? Would it not be helpful at least to give some expression of support to the National Council of Resistance, which is seeking to replace that oppressive regime with a democratic one?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We stand ready to take whatever action may he necessary in the light of events.

Sir Dennis Walters: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly received the support of the whole House for his statement. Will he accept that the Rushdie book is now the focal point of a power struggle within Iran, the outcome of which will be relevant to the interests of the west as well as peace in the middle east? Therefore, will he assure us that he will continue to handle the situation with the utmost sensitivity?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. It is clearly important to go on making our position clear on the various points raised in the House today, as I think that the whole House has done. We certainly would wish to see the restoration of normal relations with the people, and thus with the Government, of Iran, but we are not prepared to see that done at the price of surrendering our commitment to our own principles. We must hope that events take such a course in Iran that will make that possible.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to remind the House that this is an extension of Question Time. We have a busy day ahead of us.

Points of Order

Mr. John Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Government or the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement, in view of today's announcement by British Rail on the Channel tunnel? It makes it clear that an extra £1 billion will be required to meet problems in Kent. That clearly transfers the matter from a private Bill procedure to a public investment, which means public accountability. It is quite deplorable that we have had no statement from the Government. This matter affects not only the people of Kent but everybody in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request today. I understand that the statement was only made at 3.30.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since you are the final arbiter on questions that are tabled in the Table Office, could you give me some assistance as to why part of a question that I tabled has been refused? I—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I stop the hon. Lady there? I have not had an opportunity of looking at this question and I am afraid that I know nothing about it. Will she please allow me to do so before she raises a point of order on the matter?

Mrs. Mahon: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It cannot be raised now. Let me look into it, please.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State for Health to introduce regulations into the House to ensure that those people who are seeking to make claims from his Department to enable them to travel to visit sick relatives can have their claims properly dealt with rather than held up in a queue of 10,000 in the offices in Newcastle?

Mr. Speaker: I have not had such a request.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 267) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Homes for the Elderly

Mr. Malcolm Moss: beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate quality of service and standard of care of homes for the elderly and for other purposes.
The elderly proportion of our population is increasing quite dramatically as people live longer through better diet, improved living standards and a higher quality of health care. In 1987 there were some 9·3 million people aged 60 and over, of which 3·4 million, or 36 per cent., were 75 or over. By the year 2027 there will be an increase of 33 per cent. in the over-60 group, to 12·4 million and an increase in the over-75 group of 44 per cent., to 4·9 million. This will mean greater pressure than ever before on care and nursing facilities for the elderly.
Parelleling this increase in the elderly population in the past decade has been the massive rise in the cost of caring for elderly people in residential care homes and nursing homes. Estimates for 1988–89 suggest that the cost will break through the £1 billion barrier for the year, representing a fortyfold increase in costs since 1980. In May 1988, the annual figure was £878 million, compared with just £18 million in 1980. The current bill is rising by a staggering £200 million a year. This is probably the fastest growing area of public expenditure within the Department of Social Security.
This upward trend raises the obvious question whether this represents the best value for money for the taxpayer, commensurate with the most appropriate type of care in all circumstances for the elderly. Paradoxically, finance through social security benefits is available for what appears to be the most expensive type of care.
Residential care takes its rightful place as part of the provision of care within the community, a subject which was highlighted in three major reports last year. In March 1988, we had the Griffiths report on community care, followed by Lady Wagner's independent review of residential care, and both these followed on a report by the Committee of Public Accounts, "Community Care Developments", published last April. Before that, we had the report of the social services inspectorate's inspection of the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984, entitled "Certain Standards". The subject is, therefore, in the forefront of much research and investigation, a lot of it Government-commissioned.
All these reports highlighted similar problems. There was an enormous variation in the quality of care and standards of service in residential and nursing homes between different local authorities and between local authority provision and that of the voluntary and private sectors in the same statutory area. There was no general agreement on whether these variations should be tolerated or even allowed in the first instance. The social services departments of local authorities, as the registering authorities, were in many cases ill-equipped to fulfil their functions of registration and inspection.
There was little co-operation between public and private sectors, few joint approaches and little coordinated planning. The main deficiency was the absence of rights and privileges for the elderly residents, the

customers, who often seemed simply to feature as statistics and rarely as human beings with the right to a dignified retirement.
The Registered Homes Act 1984 was intended to ensure regulation of standards in private and voluntary residential care homes, while allowing for local development, flexibility and co-operation. The Act has brought some much needed discipline and structural form to the operation of residential care homes and nursing homes. However, it has failed to meet some of its objectives, especially in developing a relationship between the social services departments and the private sector. II has also failed to eliminate completely the scandals of disgracefully run homes, of which there are enough examples for us to demand changes to that Act to strengthen its regulatory powers.
The most recent statement on the issue was the report entitled "Residential Care for elderly people: a consumer viewpoint", recently published by the National Consumer Council and submitted to the Department of Health. Building on many of the recommendations of Griffiths and Wagner, it put the case for the consumer right at the heart of the issue. It is that emphasis on consumers' rights that is fundamental to the changes to the law proposed in the Bill.
The Bill proposes that the responsibility for registration is taken away from the social services departments of local authorities, principally because they have been placed in the invidious position of having to monitor registration requirements and standards, which in some cases their own homes fail to reach. Conflicts of interest inherent in service-providers monitoring their own standards is a general problem. Instead, the task of registration will be taken over by a new independent authority, to be called the residential homes inspectorate. That body will also be responsible for conducting regular inspections of all homes—not less than twice a year—in a systematic way, using procedures set by the Secretary of State.
For the first time all homes—the local authority homes included—will need to achieve the registration requirements and be subject to regular inspection. The Bill also widens the scope to embrace nursing homes and mental nursing homes, as well as residential care homes, as defined in the 1984 Act.
In the 1984 Act, homes with fewer than four residents were excluded from the legislation, and that has given rise to real fears and criticism. The Bill proposes to bring all homes into the registration process, including those with four residents or fewer, unless. at that smaller size. the home is not run for reward. That will still allow small units caring for relatives to exist outside the registration process.
It is estimated that in East Sussex alone there are 3,000 unregistered homes of that size. I believe that a time bomb is ticking away and a scandal is waiting to happen.
The Bill brings in a new clause to strengthen the regulatory powers of the Secretary of State, so that he shall make regulations to establish minimum and universally applicable standards of care and service. The Centre for Policy on Aging's code of practice, as set out in its 1984 publication, "Home Life", which has already been endorsed by the Secretary of State, shall provide the basis for detailed regulations and those shall apply equally to nursing as well as residential homes. Those nationally determined standards will form the basis for the residential homes inspectorate's registration and inspection responsibilities.
Focusing yet further on the consumer dimension, the Bill's other proposals introduce the requirement for comprehensive information about homes—information concerning their style, the regimes of life and internal rules. That information would be made readily available to customers and potential customers.
That will be achieved, primarily, by the mandatory requirement to publish and distribute a brochure or handbook about the home. Requirements on content and presentation will be established by the Secretary of State and their implementation will be monitored by the inspectorate. Each home will be required to set up a well publicised charter of customer rights and a complaints procedure. The inspectorate will have powers to investigate complaints and adjudicate on them. It will be mandatory for each home to set up self-evaluation procedures with proper training of staff, together with a regular performance review.
The Bill will not answer the vexed question of who makes, and under what procedures or organisation, the decision that care for an elderly person is best delivered in a residential home, as opposed to them receiving community care in their own homes. The Griffiths report made recommendations concerning community care and the Minister's statement in February gave on grounds for optimism that that report will soon be brought before the House for full debate. Care for the elderly in homes is, however, a vital and rapidly increasing ingredient in the provision of community care, and improvements in overall quality of service and standards, universally and independently monitored, are long overdue.
The majority of homes achieve adequate standards, but that is not good enough. The best are excellent, and the best practice should be encouraged to become the norm.
As Sir Roy Griffiths said:
Community care is a poor relation, everybody's distant relative and nobody's baby.
It is time that that baby was adopted.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Malcolm Moss, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. John Hannam.

HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY

Mr. Malcolm Moss accordingly presented a Bill to regulate quality of service and standard of care of homes for the elderly and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
We are gathered here for the annual event of the renewal of the emergency powers and provisions in Northern Ireland. As the House knows, the rules have been changed under the 1987 Act so that that Act will lapse in 1992 and it will require totally fresh—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but I should make it clear to the House that we are also debating the second motion:
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

Mr. King: I think that that will be for the convenience of the House.
The 1987 Act will lapse in 1992 and it will then be necessary for totally fresh legislation to be brought before the House if the emergency provisions and emergency powers are to continue.
These provisions require an annual renewal of the legislation, which gives the House an opportunity to review it. The first question before the House today is whether the emergency provisions and emergency powers are necessary. If that question is answered in the affirmative, as it is by Lord Colville in his extremely valuable review, the second question is whether they are all necessary, given that they are necessary in general.
One of the advantages now enjoyed by our debate is that we are in possession of Lord Colville's report on the operation in 1988 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the House when I express our appreciation for the thorough and constructive way in which Lord Colville has approached that task. His report has undoubtedly improved the quality of our debates. People do not necessarily agree with all the conclusions that Lord Colville may draw, but he has gone into these matters thoroughly and made clear in his report how many people he spoke to and the depth in which he has studied these matters. It is extremely helpful to have his independent assessment of the Acts.
Lord Colville concluded that the emergency powers are necessary; not least after yesterday's events, and after other recent outrages, I hardly think that anybody would seek to suggest that there was not every need to ensure that the security forces are properly equipped with the necessary powers and resources to give support to the community and to protect it from attacks, from whichever extreme they may come.
As the House is aware, the IRA is currently seeking to mount a particularly vicious campaign in Northern Ireland, aided and significantly resourced by weapons and explosives from Libya. That campaign poses a major threat at present to the security of the community and it endangers members of that community throughout the


Province no matter from which side they may come. We have had some particularly awful and nasty IRA attacks, as well as attacks from other extreme republican terrorist groups, and some particularly appalling loyalist extremist attacks. I know that the House will join me in uniformly condemning them, from whichever quarter they come.
Yesterday evening's atrocity, against the background of the recent instructions for no attacks on civilians which were, apparently, given by supporters of the IRA, strikes the depths of hypocrisy. We have seen a background of attacks on distinguished civil servants, judges, contractors, service families, on the Hanna family, Gillian Johnston, the grandfather and grand-daughter returning from bingo in Benburb and on the good neighbours in Londonderry going to see whether another neighbour was all right. We have seen the bomb attached under the car of somebody who had the misfortune of buying a house previously owned by an RUC member who had moved more than a year before, the attacks on the two civilians passing the Falls road swimming pool and the security guard at Donacloney, the atrocity last night at Coagh and the attack on the former policeman in Donegal. We have seen mistake after mistake, and nastiness after nastiness from both extremes.
Those outrages bring home to us all too clearly, as those who work or spend time in Northern Ireland know, the vital need to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces and to ensure that whoever is responsible for outrages is brought to justice and that those who can give help or information to the RUC do so to break this appalling cycle of murder, viciousness and bestiality, whose only product is yet more murder, killing and bestiality.
In bringing these instruments before the House, I have even less need for embarrassment than before in standing for the need for the special powers and the paramount importance of ensuring that the police and security forces have the resources and powers available to them to deal with the nasty and evil people who exist in some of the darker and less attractive corners of the Province.

Mr. David Alton: The whole House is with the right hon. Gentleman in what he has said. Can he tell us a little more about the incident to which he referred in which more Semtex was discovered yesterday in Scarborough and the possibility that more than one active cell of the IRA may be involved in trying to promote more violence in Great Britain?

Mr. King: I cannot comment further on that from the information that the police have made available. I referred earlier to a particularly vicious IRA campaign which is amply reinforced by weapons and explosives supplied by Libya. I know that no hon. Member is under any illusions that the campaign is confined to Northern Ireland or to Great Britain. One knows from events, whether in Gibraltar, Germany or Holland, that the IRA's intention is to kill, maim and murder wherever it finds easy targets and wherever it thinks that carnage can be created and attention drawn to its evil purposes.
I am afraid that we had confirmation yesterday of the IRA's determination to use its resources in whatever ways may cause the maximum stress and suffering. It also reminds us that no society can stand aside from such terrorism and that everyone in the mainland of Great Britain is as one with the people of Northern Ireland. We

face a common threat, we must face it together with all the resources that our country can bring to bear, and we must face it with the Government of the Republic as well. Anyone who stops for more than a second to study the IRA—or the UVF and others in the short term—knows that, if they were to succeed in their awful campaign in Northern Ireland, it would be a serious threat to the future of democratic government throughout the island of Ireland.

Mr. James Kilfedder: In view of the catalogue of atrocities to which the right hon. Gentleman has rightly referred, was it not wrong for the Government to cut the amount of money available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

Mr. King: What is quite wrong is to try to score such political points, especially if they are totally incorrect. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that he wishes that the increased funds to the RUC had been increased by even more than the amount by which we increased them this year, he has a valid point, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House and I assume that his remark was an unfortunate slip of the tongue. Funds for the RUC have in no sense been cut. They have been increased and we shall seek to ensure, at all times, that the RUC has the necessary resources available.
Anyone who is familiar with, or knows something of, the work of the RUC cannot fail to be impressed by their courage, professionalism, training and equipment. all of which take resources, and do not give the impression, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that the RUC is starved of funds. It is a police force for which I am proud to have some responsibility. It works bravely in extremely difficult circumstances and is increasingly recognised as a force seeking honestly to deal impartially with both communities and to protect both from the extremes and nastiness that can exist in Northern Ireland. I am anxious to ensure that it has the necessary resources to achieve its objectives. I hope that that point is clear.

Mr. Tony Favell: In view of the discovery of Semtex in Scarborough yesterday and yet another threat to assassinate our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will my right hon. Friend say something about the freedom of movement of Irish citizens across the border from Southern Ireland into Ulster and by sea from the Republic to ports in this country? Is he satisfied that there is adequate surveillance? As my right hon. Friend is aware, there is at present a debate about border controls between, for example, France and the United Kingdom and Belgium and United Kingdom. Yet Irish citizens can move here freely without passports. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are proper controls over their movements?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right: there is easy and ready access, and the connections between the two countries are manifest and extensive. On the most recent figures, about 1 million first-generation Irish people are living and working in Great Britain. The contacts and involvements are substantial, and there are various anomalies. It is, for example, no secret that there are citizens of the Irish Republic serving in the British Army.


They are enlisting in British regiments and serving honourably and bravely in them. There are many connections.
The tragedy and awfulness of terrorism is that the genuine and admirable relationships which have existed for so long between our countries are put under strain by evil men and evil pressures. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are trying to ensure free movement backwards and forwards, whether for Irish race horses coming here or for Jack Charlton managing the Irish football team, and the relationships are myriad. We try to ensure that decent, honest people can maintain friendly relations, while also trying to ensure that proper scrutiny and the best intelligence are maintained on those whose intentions may be less satisfactory than we would wish.
We have a short debate, so I must proceed to say a word about the two Acts. That is necessary, because I doubt that I am the only Member of this House who has difficulty in finding his way through the maze of the two Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and deciding which powers arise from which Act.
Although I have enormous sympathy with Lord Colville's suggestion about consolidating all the legislation, I cannot respond to that. However, it would be enormously to the benefit of any hon. Member trying to contribute to these debates, because the legislation has evolved in a complex way. Although I do not see any early prospect of such consolidation, I can well understand why Lord Colville made that suggestion.
I remind the House that we are proposing to continue the emergency provisions Act 1978, which has three key elements. It gives the security forces in Northern Ireland extra powers to deal with the special problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland, including the powers to stop and question, to arrest, to search and to seize. It also provides powers to proscribe organisations and creates offences relating to training people in the manufacture or use of firearms or explosives and to displays of support for proscribed organisations. That Act also provides the legal authority for the so-called Diplock courts.
The 1987 Act introduced a statutory right for persons arrested to have someone notified of their arrest and whereabouts and to have access to legal advice. It provides authority for me to impose statutory time limits on pretrial stages of proceedings and it introduced a statutory scheme for regulating the security guard industry in Northern Ireland. That was one of the first steps that we took to try to stop some of the rackets and the gangsterism that disfigures various activities in Northern Ireland. The provision of those two Acts are all temporary and, unless we renew them in this order, they will lapse on 21 March.
I turn now to the basis on which we are proposing that the two Acts be renewed. As I did last year, I express my appreciation to Lord Colville for his review, which was thorough and penetrating. I refer to his recommendations on certain provisions that could lapse, but as I said at the beginning of my speech, we have two questions to answer: should we renew these emergency provisions, and if we should, do we need to renew them all?
Lord Colville pointed to certain powers that can now be allowed to lapse. They all relate to the 1978 Act and comprise section 24, which gives the security forces the

power to call upon assemblies of three or more people to disperse: paragraph 4 of schedule 3, which allows the RUC to impose directions on the conduct of funerals and paragraph 5 of schedule 3, under which I can, by order close licensed premises and clubs for public order purposes. Lord Colville stated that each of those three powers could now be allowed to lapse, apart from one part of paragraph 4 of schedule 3, under which the police can require people taking part in funerals to travel by car.
The Government welcome those recommendations, and the order and regulations that we are considering today will give effect to them. I hope that the House recognises that that confirms our readiness to consider the provisions, to review them where sensible and to reduce powers that are no longer necessary, but only—I stress the word "only"—when it is safe to do so.
In that context, I also welcome and accept Lord Colville's recommendation that when the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 becomes law, the RUC's power of arrest under section 13 of the 1978 Act can lapse. That is the police's sole remaining arrest power under the emergency provisions Acts—thereafter, the police will rely on the power in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 or the ordinary criminal law. That further reduction in the emergency law would be another welcome adjustment in the balance of the law.

Mr. William Ross: Given that we have seen extreme violence at funerals, what powers will the police have over the conduct of such funerals in the future?

Mr. King: There are powers in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 in the prevention of terrorism Act and in the ordinary criminal law. Rather than try to give a precise answer to that question off the cuff, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies Lord Colville's report because the powers that Lord Colville suggests can lapse will not leave gaps that would leave the RUC without proper powers of control. As Lord Colville identified, there is undoubtedly some duplication. We should like to achieve the least possible difference. The security forces have powers that make the emergency provisions redundant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will—

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. King: I shall give way again briefly to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ross: Can we take it as a general principle that all the provisions that are being allowed to fall are covered elsewhere?

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman reads Lord Colville's report, he will find that that is his view—and it is our view also. I am putting forward our proposals only after close consultation with the RUC and the Army.
I turn now to the main findings of Lord Colville's report. As I have already said, Lord Colville makes it clear that, in general, the powers continue to be needed, but it is important that the powers are seen to be used fairly and impartially. Lord Colville also raised a difficult issue that had been raised previously—that of an alternative charge of manslaughter for members of the security forces who may be charged with the use of undue force or even with


murder. In the present circumstances, they can be found only guilty or not guilty of that serious charge, and it has been suggested that there should be an alternative charge of manslaughter. At the moment, Lord Windlesham is chairing a committee on murder and manslaughter and their treatment under the law. As that issue is under consideration, I propose to await the outcome of that committee's findings before commenting further. However, I entirely understand why Lord Colville raised that issue.
Elsewhere in his report, Lord Colville returned to the question of "certifying in". That is the idea that, instead of defendants being tried before a Diplock court, unless the Attorney-General decides otherwise, the presumption should be that they will be sent for a jury trial unless the case is certified in to a Diplock court. Since Lord Colville's report last year, the balance seems to have shifted more in favour of the idea of certifying in. As that might be perceived as a further step towards normality, we are willing to consider it seriously, especially if we find that the proposal is generally welcomed. I hope that those comments will be helpful.
Likewise, we shall have another close look at Lord Colville's remarks about the video recording of terrorist interviews, although there are substantial arguments against such a course. Such arguments are partly rehearsed in Lord Colville's report, as is the question of the audio recording of terrorist interviews, but that also raises some difficult issues. However, as I have said, we shall reconsider that.
I have made it clear that the Government are pleased to accept most of Lord Colville's recommendations and that they are contained in the amending regulations. We shall reconsider his two points about certifying in and video recording and. as I have said, the issue of a manslaughter offence will be considered further in the light of the Windlesham findings.
The debate on these emergency provisions and the focusing on the powers that they contain can be misrepresented by others to suggest that the Government believe that, by these provisions alone, the serious situation and threat of terrorism can be effectively addressed. It is, of course, vital to ensure that in the exceptional difficulties and circumstances that the security forces face in protecting the community from attacks, from whichever quarter they may come, they have the necessary powers to enable them to discharge those responsibilities.
But as Lord Colville emphasised, it is absolutely vital that the powers about which I have talked—of arrest, of stop and search and of seizure—are used in a responsible and proper manner. I know that the Chief Constable and General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland attach the greatest importance to ensuring that all those concerned—be they constables or private soldiers, and whether they be in the RUC, the Regular Army or the UDR—at all times conduct themselves to the highest standards and in the best traditions of the regiments and organisations to which they belong.
Anybody who knows anything about Northern Ireland appreciates how easy it is for them to be, and how often they will be, subject to provocation—how people try to embarrass them and how young soldiers often find themselves in difficult circumstances, when a great deal is asked of them. We in this House must recognise, and pay tribute to, the way in which the overwhelming majority of

those young people, on finding themselves in often dangerous and frightening circumstances, still comply with and honour the codes under which they have been trained and instructed. We owe a great debt to them.
It is absolutely vital that they act in that way. When those standards are not maintained and when, sometimes under stress or pressure of one sort or another, one constable, young soldier or whoever it may be, slips from those standards, the propaganda machine can easily wind into action, criticism can easily arise and damage can be done to the whole reputation of the security forces, to the cause for which they stand and to the interests of a free society. I appreciate, therefore, why Lord Colville addressed these matters as he did. I appreciate also the enormous importance that those in authority give to ensuring that the people under their command understand the importance of all of this.
Apart from the exercise of these provisions, it is important, if we are to meet the threat of terrorism and the evil attack on democratic society that it represents, that in every respect we can be seen to be conducting administration—be it the administration of justice or of government in Northern Ireland—thoroughly, fairly and properly.
I pay tribute to the courage, tremendous service and distinction of the judiciary, to all those involved in the courts service and particularly, in view of recent events, of all those involved in the legal profession, who seek to maintain the standards of justice in Northern Ireland.
We have had problems, for instance in the administration of justice. There have been problems over delays in cases coming forward, with considerable delays for people on remand. All of those have given rise to genuine feelings of grievance, with people believing that they have not been fairly treated. We owe it to the security forces and to those who stand in the front line to ensure that the other elements in our policy are fair and effective and do not give rise to grievance and disaffection in such a way that their task is made more difficult.
We must consider the situation in the courts, the proper administration of the courts, and have a fair and positive approach to prison policy. In economic policy, we must ensure that we create the opportunity for more employment, with fairness and equality of opportunity in the achievement of those jobs. We must provide a better environment and seek to ensure a better quality of housing; establish higher standards and better opportunities in education, with more opportunity for education together by way of integrated education, cross-community contacts and schemes between schools and in further education or in other voluntary activities. All those features can contribute to what must be an effective and comprehensive Government policy towards addressing some of the tragedies and challenges that are represented by attitudes and the situation in Northern Ireland today.
It is the aim of the terrorist to destroy and intimidate, and to kill the hopes of a better life and future for the people in Northern Ireland. It is our ambition—as it is of every Member in this democratic House of Commons—to see that the people of Northern Ireland have a chance of a better future, and better prospects and, through the defeat of the men of violence, to restore hope and opportunity to the Province.
We seek by many means to achieve that, but one necessary ingredient must be to ensure that the security forces, who stand in the front line against the most evil and


nasty elements that exist in the Province, have the powers and provisions to do their job. It is in that spirit that I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Regrettably, once again we are obliged to discuss Northern Ireland business in the shadow of the gunman. Yesterday's murders demonstrated yet again the depth to which the conflict in Northern Ireland can sink. On behalf of the Opposition, I extend my condolences to the families of the victims.
I assure the Government that we are committed to the defeat of the so-called freedom fighters, whose vision of freedom is limited to the freedom of the graveyard. Our difference with the Government is how that goal can best be achieved. Whether one rejects or supports the order, no one can be satisfied that we should be obliged to debate yet another renewal order for the emergency provisions Acts.
No hon. Member in any part of the House can take comfort from the fact that the Government feel it necessary to renew the Acts and thus admit that Northern Ireland continues to be a society in which armed soldiers are required to patrol the streets, in which police officers are obliged to carry arms and in which many of the human rights that we take for granted are suspended.
The Labour party realises that there is a serious problem which requires the use of the Army and which necessitates an armed police force. But we do not accept that human rights can be suspended indefinitely without defeating the purpose which the security forces are trying to achieve—the protection of those same rights against the would-be dictators of the paramilitary groups.
The strategy adopted by the Government places the security forces in an invidious position. My party cannot accept that the policy of containment alone, which appears to be adopted by the Government—despite what the Secretary of State said—is viable, and therefore we shall vote against the order.
It has long been accepted by the security forces that they are engaged in a holding operation the objective of which is to provide the space for political leaders to devise effective institutions for the Province. Without such political reforms, the role of the security forces becomes a demoralising exercise in futility.
The longer the politicians hide behind the security forces and rely on them to deal with the problems which emerge from the political morass in Northern Ireland, the more intractable the problems become, the more difficult is the position of the security forces and the more difficult becomes the possibility of a political settlement.
Ultimately, emergency legislation has a corrupting and counter-productive effect. I say corrupting in the sense that the persistence of the emergency leads Ministers and other political leaders to lose the sense of urgency that the occasion demands. It is counter-productive because the suspension of human rights eventually becomes the abolition of those rights, thus accentuating the political problems which gave rise to the emergency in the first place, and so the vicious spiral continues.
It is useless to deny that the security forces face a major problem in the Province, but it is equally foolish to deny that they are part of the problem. They are asked to

operate on behalf of political institutions whose legitimacy is contested by part of the population. As a result, the security forces are not accepted in the same way as they would be in other democratic societies. Continuing to allow them the use of powers which they would not need in other democratic societies is an abdication of political responsibility by the leaders in the Province, for which the security forces pay the price. That again is why we shall vote against the order.
Having said that, I am pleased that the Secretary of State has decided to act upon some elements of Lord Colville's report on the operation of the legislation. It is a pity that the Government were not more forthcoming on his report on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. Although I do not agree with all the conclusions in the report, I believe that it contains a significant number of comments and recommendations which reflect the views of my party.
I want to single out two issues identified by Lord Colville as being of particular importance. In paragraph 1·5 he stated:
The battle for hearts and minds should be the paramount preoccupation of those who exercise emergency powers.
Although the Labour party believes that the emergency powers themselves are a factor in sustaining grievances which encourage violence, their impact can be significantly attenuated or accentuated by the ways in which the powers are exercised in the homes, on the streets and in the courts.
Lord Colville gives a striking example. The end of the supergrass trials has removed a particularly damaging threat to public confidence in the Diplock courts. Those courts will still be unlikely to gain the compete legitimacy that the judicial institutions in Britain or even the ordinary criminal courts in Northern Ireland enjoy because of the way in which they were instituted, but at least it is possible now to avoid some of the practices which throw the administration of justice into complete public disrepute.
Another issue which Lord Colville raised correctly was the standard of behaviour of the security forces. Critics may object that hon. Members demand an excessively high standard of behaviour from the police and the Army, confronted as they are by paramilitaries whose contempt for human rights is only equalled by their hypocrisy on the subject. Faced with sectarian killers, bombers and vigilantes, there is a natural temptation to take off the kid gloves. That is precisely what must not be allowed to happen. I know that the Secretary of State agrees with me on that, as he said earlier.
We expect high standards from the security forces precisely because they are there to provide security, not insecurity. It is in the best interests of the security forces that they occupy the high moral ground. That increases the chance of defeating the paramilitaries, eventually allowing for the establishment for the first time of recognisably normal forms of policing in Northern Ireland, which is the aim of every party in the House.
I am, therefore, concerned that even after last year's debate the 1982 shootings in Armagh have not yet been laid to rest. On the one hand, the inquest proceedings have been hindered by the negative attitude of the Government in appealing from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland to the House of Lords, and now, tragically, by the death of Patrick Finucane, the solicitor murdered after the ill-advised comments by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). One of Northern


Ireland's most experienced legal figures, Sir Oliver Napier, the current chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, has pointed out:
I would hope that Ministers of the Crown would learn that in Northern Ireland words can kill and that their words can be used to justify murder. If those two lessons are learned, Pat Finucane will not have died in vain.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State has realised the error of his ways and even wishes to forget the remarks that he made, regrettably, in the Standing Committee. That seems to be his attitude because in letters to people who complained about what he said, he now talks about "remarks attributed to me". I do not know what reflection that is upon the people who write for Hansard, or even on the members of the press who were there and heard what he said, or on members of the Committee. Now that he is referring to "remarks attributed to me", I wonder at what stage he will forget that he ever said them.

Mr. Ian Gow: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation against my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). He read out part of a letter which I think he said was written by my hon. Friend. Does the hon. Gentleman think that he would be fair if he read out to the House not only that short phrase but the longer passage or the whole paragraph from which he selected those words?

Mr. McNamara: It is a short letter to a person who wrote to him on a postcard about the murder of Patrick Finucane. The Under-Secretary of State wrote:
This is a tragic and wicked killing. I very much hope that those responsible will be brought before the courts as soon as possible. As to the identity of those responsible or the circumstances in which the murder has taken place, that is a matter for the RUC.
I entirely agree with the views Tom King expressed on this matter on Monday 13 February and reject any connection between Mr. Finucane's murder and remarks attributed to me. To seek to make political points on the back of such a tragedy is unworthy and does nobody any credit".
It does no one any credit either to deny what he has said or to seek to give an impression by the use of the word "attributed" that that was not the point he made.

Mr. Gow: rose—

Mr. McNamara: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman asked me to read out the passage, and I have done so.
In regard to confidence in police matters, the internal police proceedings should be speedily concluded in the Stalker affair. I hope that they will be completed before the new chief of the RUC takes over. Not only would that improve confidence in the administration of the RUC but it would be fair to the police officers who have been kept in a state of uncertainty for far too long. Public confidence in the RUC has been damaged by the failure to clear up the affair.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has raised the case of the Armagh four. I have had an opportunity to read the documents which he sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). On the strength of those documents, there are grounds for concern about the case. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider carefully the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
I agree entirely with Lord Colville's second major point. In paragraph 3 of the report he stated:

I have approached the review on a simple basis, that the emergency legislation should not remain in force unless the case for it is clearly established.
It is clear from the review that that approach extends to the parts as well as the whole. That is an important principle which should not be overlooked. We cannot allow emergency legislation or any emergency powers to remain on the statute book simply through the force of inertia. There is a duty to assess constantly the validity of responses to the paramilitary threat, both in terms of the action on the ground by the security forces, and the policies put into practice by the Secretary of State and by the legislative decisions of the House.
That cannot be confined to the annual reports by the reviewer appointed by the Secretary of State, estimable though the reviewer is and the reports may be. There is already in existence a statutory watchdog for that purpose—the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights established by Parliament under section 20 of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. I regret that the Secretary of State has not treated the commision with sufficient respect in the past year, as he has ignored its views and in some cases its right to be consulted over several issues. As the commission chairman pointed out in a statement on 19 January:
I am fearful that everything the commission is doing to promote human rights in Northern Ireland will be cut from under us if the Government does not make greater use of the consultative process which in a democratic society is absolutely essential. The cumulative impact of what Government is doing is most worrying
However, the Secretary of State has decided to accept the advice of Lord Colville concerning those parts of the Act which are no longer necessary. I welcome his decision to allow section 24 to lapse and to amend schedule 3. Those powers are unnecessary as they are now covered by other parts of the law. I hope that the Government will act in a similar way in regard to section 13, in the order which I presume will be laid before the House next year—unfortunately. I say unfortunately in the context that all such legislation is unfortunate. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about section 13.
The police power of arrest under section 13 is clearly superfluous, having been used only once, in the first six months of 1988. I suspect that it is something of an embarrassment to the police. and was used only by accident when police officers became confused by the plethora of powers at their disposal. I shall return to that point later and refer to the need for clarity in the law, on which I disagree with the Secretary of State's conclusions.
I am also pleased that Lord Colville recommended that the process of certifying out cases from the Diplock court should be replaced by a system of certifying in. Opposition Members have urged that course for a considerable time. Therefore, we very much welcome the Secretary of State's statement that he is considering that as a sensible option. I believe that that would be one stage closer to restoring the law to normality. If cases are certified in that would be an unusual procedure, and we would improve the position so that there would be more trials by jury.
Perhaps one of the most contentious aspects of the Acts are the powers of internment contained in section 12 and schedule 1 of the 1978 Act. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has had the good sense to continue to allow those powers to lapse, despite urgings from some parts of the House. No Government, since the end of internment in 1976, have considered internment to be a sensible or


effective method of dealing with the paramilitaries. However, permitting the power of internment, even if it is dormant, to remain on the statute book presents certain problems. For many in the Province, the distinction is too subtle and demands an awareness of legislative procedure that I doubt exists, and in any case is sometimes misleading.
In Northern Ireland, it is correctly assumed that the Secretary of State can simply sign detention orders at any time he sees fit and fill the prison ships once again. Although an Order in Council would be necessary, the detainees could be in custody long before Parliament had the opportunity to consider the order. Because of that, the power of internment is not dormant in a political sense. It is a live issue which the paramilitaries are only too willing to exploit in the aftermath of their periodic spectacular atrocities, using the threat, and its emotive connotations, to divert attention from their own commitment to violate human rights.
A clear political sign that internment is not an option should be given by removing the power from the statute book. Its existence is a constant reminder to the people of Northern Ireland of the fragility and contested legitimacy of political institutions in the Province.
There are of course aspects of the report with which I disagree, such as the length of periods of remand. The Secretary of State spoke about his new powers in that sphere and we hope to see them in operation fairly soon. Nevertheless, remand periods continue to be excessive. Although efforts have been made to reduce periods spent on remand, the figures remain unacceptably high. According to the statistics published by the Northern Ireland Office, in the first six months of 1988 the average period between first remand and sentencing or discharge was 234 days. Such a state of affairs enables supporters of the paramilitaries to gain credence for claims that internment by remand exists in Northern Ireland. To eliminate that source of controversy, the Secretary of State should make use of his powers under section 3 of the 1987 Act.
Another issue connected with the emergency which has attracted increasing concern is the problem of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences. The review procedure for setting release dates is attracting increasing concern because of the apparent lack of precision and lack of understanding by the parties involved.
We hope that the Government will be able to establish clear and objective criteria for the setting of release dates to reduce the degree of uncertainty and insecurity which afflicts prisoners and their families. We recognise that there are difficulties, but they are not insuperable. We believe that it is in the best interests of good order in the prisons, of the families of the prisoners and of the community that there should be no unnecessary sources of grievances in the prison system.
The Labour party also believes that there is a need to reform the present Diplock court system. I accept that some progress has been made in increasing confidence in the courts, but as long as the sole judge and jury are one and the same, there will be a credibility gap. An effective alternative would be the establishment of three-judge courts. That has also been recommended by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
Another area of concern is the admissibility of evidence. Although section 5 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 rules out confessions obtained by torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or by violence or threat of violence, it does not require confessions to be voluntary. I do not share the conclusions of the review on that issue. The courts have interpreted that section in a way which has been regarded as strengthening the position of the prosecution. Once again, confidence in the judicial process has been somewhat reduced. The trend towards the acceptance of involuntary confessions is now to be reinforced powerfully by the possibility of drawing inferences from silence under interrogation permitted by the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. Furthermore, there have been some worrying signs from what goes on during interrogations, as was demonstrated in the Gillen and Forbes cases which are recent, not ancient, history that interrogation rules have been violated and excessive force has been used in some cases. For those reasons it is more urgent than ever that the taping of interviews in police stations should be introduced, as should videoing, as Lord Colville has recommended. Unfortunately, Lord Colville's recommendations did not make completely clear whether videoing meant a silent recording of what went on or whether such videos should include a soundtrack. We believe that the videos should include a soundtrack. The power of the police to deny legal advice to detainees should also be removed, rather than regulated as it is at present.
I was interested to read Lord Colville's comments on the codes of practice for the police and the Army. I hope that those codes will be finalised and published as soon as possible. I feel sure that the Secretary of State and the security forces will wish to avoid the nonsense surrounding the publication of the RUC document "Professional Policing Ethics" at 3.30 on a Friday afternoon. We believe that all codes of practice issued to the RUC and the Army should be published. Given that the whole point of the codes of practice is to convince the public that the security forces behave impartially, there is no reason to keep them under wraps. We are also in favour of giving statutory effect to the codes of practice to ensure that they are not simply instruments for the effective management of the security forces. It is equally important to ensure that members of the public can secure redress and that action is taken publicly to deal with violations of the code. As the aftermath of the Stalker affair revealed, disciplinary hearings in private cannot replace the court room as a forum for winning and maintaining public confidence in the police and the Army.
Finally, I return to the clarity of the criminal law, a matter to which the Secretary of State referred. Lord Colville has twice suggested that the emergency provisions Acts and certain sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be consolidated into separate legislation. That is a welcome suggestion, but I believe that we need to go much further and examine the total picture and the inter-relationship of the various parts of the criminal law with the emergency law and the non-emergency law.
At the most basic level, there is an urgent need to clarify the law for the security forces as well as for the average citizen. Ministers themselves have been somewhat confused, as has been shown by the remarks on searches made by the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, and the recent controversy which the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office provoked by his views on the


powers of the security forces to demand dates of birth. Not only does it make Ministers a laughing stock, but, more importantly, it is detrimental to public confidence in the law. Furthermore, it also gives the impression of a piecemeal and haphazard security policy.
If we are to have an emergency law, it should be clear, coherent and concise. There should be no powers which are not needed and no duplication of powers with other emergency powers or with the ordinary criminal law. We should not fall into the trap of believing that the criminal law alone can solve the problems of Northern Ireland.
As the Government fail to address those challenges, I call upon the House to reject the order. Until the Government grasp the reality of Northern Ireland politics and make moves to establish fully legitimate political arrangements for the Province and make proper use of the potential contained in the Anglo-lrish Agreement, and until they realise that there are no military solutions in Northern Ireland, the present depressing climate is likely to prevail. As the emergency provisions Act, far from being a determined response to the paramilitary threat, epitomises political lethargy, the Labour party is obliged to vote against the order.

Rev. William McCrea: I rise with a heavy heart having experienced yesterday evening a most despicable and diabolical sectarian attack in my constituency which left three decent civilians dead in the village of Coagh. It is significant that we are debating the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1989 only a few hours after the slaughter of the innocents.
I want first to express my sincere appreciation to the members of the security forces for their faithful service to the Ulster community in very dangerous and trying circumstances. Words of appreciation are not sufficient to express our debt of gratitude to the thousands of young men and women who wear the uniform in defence of freedom, especially during the past years of continuing murderous attacks by the Provisional IRA.
The security situation, unfortunately, continues to deteriorate and a very dangerous situation is about to explode. After 20 years, why do we come to the House today to debate the continuance of emergency provisions? After 20 years, why have the terrorist attacks not ceased or the terrorists been defeated?
I must declare that, unfortunately and sadly, there has been success in the terrorist camp and there are many reasons for that success. One of the reasons why we have to debate these emergency provisions after 20 years is that there is popular support for terrorism within a portion of the republican and nationalist community in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that the IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein, can boast considerable popular support in the Roman Catholic community. However, it must also he said that many Roman Catholics find the actions of the murder gangs repugnant. Unfortunately, many find themselves in large republican enclaves in the Province and they are held under the heel of terror. The defeat of terrorism would not only release the majority community in Northern Ireland, the Unionist population, from the heel of the terrorists; it would also release many of the decent Roman Catholics as well.
Unfortunately, over many years there has been a breeding of anti-British hatred and that has been expressed through the use of the gun. I speak with the support of the vast majority of the people in the Province, and, although Ministers may deny this, the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was a signal to the terrorists as is shown in the infamous words of Danny Morrison following its signing, "We have now proved that more violence will gain more concessions." Unfortunately, the violence continues.
There has been a lack of resolute action against the terrorist gangs. I was interested in the remarks made by the Secretary of State in reaction to my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) about the availability of finances for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Around Castlederg terrorist attacks have been common and members of the security forces are continually under threat. Some 400 serving members and ex-members of the security forces must be protected by the soft target protection unit. Is it right for the Secretary of State to claim that all is well when there are only 11 members of the STPU to care for 400 people over miles of countryside? I have spoken to members and ex-members of the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment and I know that in that border area they feel in grave danger. They believe that there is insufficient protection for them in their homes or when they try to defend the freedom in that area.
It cannot be right for the Secretary of State to claim that all is well. Reserve Constable Monteith was murdered recently in Castlederg at the town's check-point. As the town is so close to the border and because of the evident danger to members of the security forces manning that check-point, a promise was made that three people would man the check-point at all times. Only one person was available to man it on the day that reserve Constable Monteith was murdered. Reserve Constable Monteith was not working that day, but an hour after the check-point was to be opened, he received a telephone call telling him to report for duty because there was no second person to man it. No third person was available; the IRA saw the breach in security and reserve Constable Monteith was murdered and buried as a result.
I make my appeal with the full knowledge and support of the members of the security forces serving in that area.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman in these debates for several years, but he never refers to killings carried out by the so-called loyalists. Does he, along with the rest of us, condemn killings no matter which side carries them out? Does he not think, therefore, that he should mention the loyalist killings, many of which have happened recently?

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, it is sad to see that he has not examined the official record and has deliberately misrepresented—

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Answer the question.

Rev. William McCrea: With the greatest respect, I will answer in my own time and if the hon. Lady wants to intervene, she should have the decency to ask.
I have made it absolutely clear that Ulster does not need any killings and I want to see the security forces carrying out an effective policy throughout the Province which will remove the men of terror right across the community. That is what I want for Northern Ireland. In the five or six years


that I have been a Member of this House I have still to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) state genuinely that he has much pity for the loyalist community, which has suffered so much over the past 20 years from the murderous thugs of the IRA. As usual, the hon. Gentleman wants to draw us away from the attacks. All I am talking about is an innocent RUC man and I suppose that that is not enough for the hon. Member for Hillsborough.
I am concerned about members of the security forces who are in danger and I have been asked to make representations on their behalf by the people who elected me. It ill becomes any hon. Member to try to play down the serious threat faced by members of the security forces from callous, cowardly bunches of thugs and terrorists who do not care whether they murder Protestants or Roman Catholics.
Members of the security forces do not believe that there are sufficient personnel to protect Castlederg in my constituency. The other evening I spoke at a meeting there. A call was put out to me as a Member of Parliament that, since we were only half a mile from the border, there should be extra security personnel.
Castlederg police station is close to the border and the town is more vulnerable to and has faced more bomb attacks than any other. In its graveyard a dozen UDR men and reserve personnel are lying in their coffins, yet whenever a call is made for more personnel, the answer comes back "Sorry, we have only two people to cover the complete area and no one is available to go out in a car because the station will be left without personnel". I should be delighted for the Secretary of State to check that. Personnel from Strabane covered the meeting that evening.
Unfortunately, my constituency is in the border area and the community faces attacks from terrorists hiding in the safe haven of the Irish Republic.
In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Down the Secretary of State painted a picture of sufficient manpower and security force members to do the job. I hope, perhaps in a written reply, I shall receive an answer about what happened in the specific cases I have mentioned. I owe it to the gallant members of the security forces to make my voice heard in their support in the House. If members come to me fearing that the lives of people along the border are at risk because there are not enough personnel, it is only right and proper that, as the representative of that area, I should do that.
I know that in the past certain hon. Members have befriended IRA personnel and brought them into the House. I know that the House does not want to hear this, but we are in an emergency. Unfortunately, 20 years on, it is still an emergency, and I shall explain why. Recent events in the Province show that the vicious nature of the campaign is gaining momentum and crudeness.
What I have to say may not bother some people but yesterday, in my constituency, a business man and his wife returned from shopping in Cookstown. The man entered his garage while his wife sat in the car waiting for their two children—a boy of 14 and a girl of 16—to return from school. For those who do not know cosy, quiet, Coagh village, the garage was run by 39-year-old stock car ace,

Lesley Dallas. He was the European hot rod champion in 1986 and lived for his stock car racing and his little business, which he had built up with pride.
Quite rightly, he was the pride and joy of his wife and two children, who loved him dearly. How proud they were last Saturday when he went to the silver jubilee race at Ballymena hot rod meeting and came second. He felt that he had achieved honour for his family and district.
I grew up with Lesley Dallas—we played around the same houses and went to the same school. Lesley Dallas was one year younger than me. With Lesley lying in his coffin at home, am I supposed to come to the House and be Mr. Nice Guy for everyone to applaud, and to whom everyone can say how nice everything is? Tomorrow we shall bury Lesley Dallas and not one hon. Member—other than Unionist representatives—will go through the door of his house to say that they are sorry about what happened. They will never take the hand of Mrs. Dallas or her 14-year-old son or 16-year-old daughter, or of his widowed mother, sitting broken-hearted and riddled with arthritis in the corner.
I can assure the House that the hon. Member for Hillsborough—who was quick to get to his feet a few moments ago—will not pass through the Dallas door to speak to the sorrowing family. I would take more seriously comments from someone who knows what it is to walk into houses where there is death and who has experienced what it is to look into the face of bereaved loved ones. Such a person could not walk away with a pious attitude or a smile on his face after such an occasion. There is nothing glorious about that, or—as I will be doing tomorrow—about attending three funerals and going from one house to the next, to the next, for the burial of three constituents. I am sure that when I offer my sympathy and sorrow to the families I shall not be crowded out by a lot of hon. Members.
Lesley Dallas, whom I knew very well, stood with his hands in his pockets listening to a joke and was gunned down in cold blood as his wife was forced to crouch in the car seeking to avoid the bullets fired around her. Unfortunately, the race—remember he was a stock car driver—of life finished suddenly for Lesley Dallas yesterday as he leaned against his garage door laughing at a joke with his neighbours.
Austin Nelson, the father of four children—his daughter is a member of my congregation—appeared on television one night playing the fiddle. His only crime was that he was a fiddle player. He spoke on television about his retirement hobby of violin making and, at the end of the programme, he said that he hoped that he would be long spared, not only to make fiddles and violins for his children and grandchildren but to give people happiness by listening to the music he played. Last year, Austin went on a special course in Cambridge to further his hobby. His gracious nature won him the respect and affection of his neighbours. One evening, he entered a garage to enjoy what in Ulster is called a good bit of "crack" or humour.
Last night, less than 24 hours later, Austin reappeared on television, this time, not as a man playing a fiddle but as a body being carried off the street of Coagh. This time, the news was the announcement of his murder.
Ernie Rankin, who was 72, was a very popular Coagh character with a keen interest in football. He had no relatives and the people of the area adopted him as a son of the village. They fed him, looked after him and gathered him in on Sunday afternoons because he was a person who


liked simply country humour. Ernie enjoyed nothing better than a hearty chat and a laugh to dispel the loneliness of his life. He was nearly blind: if an IRA man had been standing in front of him, he could not have recognised him. He enjoyed company. He was called—we can see why from the photographs—the Coagh Jimmy Savile because of the way he kept his hair.
Lesley Dallas will not be driving this Saturday; Austin Nelson will not be entertaining with his fiddle on any more stages; and old Ernie Rankin, the simple, retired, loving pensioner, will not be walking Coagh street befriending everyone that passes by, irrespective of who they are.
How did these men die? At 10 past 4 in the afternoon Coagh main street turned into a scene from a John Wayne western. Outside Coagh the men were seen donning their masks. The hooded gunmen drove in and sprayed the garage corner with indiscriminate fire. Three men were murdered. Mrs. Gibson was in the car as the gunfire surrounded it. Mr. Gibson's brother was in the back of the garage as the gun fire spread through it—thank God they were saved.
No sooner had the gunmen done their deed than a bus stopped and a 14-year-old boy stepped off it, immediately opposite the place where his dad way lying in a pool of blood. A second bus pulled up behind the first and a 16-year-old girl stepped off it and walked over, not to meet her mother with joy to find out what she had bought in the shops, but to find her mother screeching and her father lying with his two friends with whom he had been sharing a joke, in a pool of blood.
After completing their task the gunmen drove down the Ballinderry road. Again, it was like a John Wayne film. As they drove away they continued firing indiscriminately into the air and then started cheering. It was another job well done. And some hon. Members, with their friendships, claim that these are the heroes and soldiers of Ireland. They are nothing better than cold-blooded murderers; let no one try to paint them in any other light.
Some weeks ago, the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, and Martin McGuinness talked about refined violence and avoiding civilian casualties. The Unionist population knew that that was eyewash, and so it has proved. It was pathetic to hear the media trotting out IRA excuses for the Coagh carnage. First they said it was retaliation; then they changed their story, claiming that the garage was a UVF hideout. A 72-year-old pensioner, a 61-year-old retired man who took up the hobby of violin-making and a 39-year-old stock car racing driver who was looked upon as a champion in the community—these were the supposed conspirators. This was nothing more than a sectarian killing; none of the people was connected with any political party or paramilitary organisation, as the police have made clear.
The legislation has not dealt with the emergency. If it had, we would not be here talking about it 20 years on. This same village had a 1,000 lb bomb placed in it last September. The bomb was left at the police station. This was not an attack on the security forces—the IRA knew that only an unlicensed dog was guarding the police station. The IRA thought that the time was right to place a 1,000 lb bomb there, not to kill the dog but to murder people living in an adjacent estate, whose inhabitants were 100 per cent. Protestant. Through the mercy of God, they were not killed.
Listening to the Secretary of State discussing the changes that he accepts, one would think that affairs were

improving and that we were leaving the crisis behind. The crisis is deepening, and the daily crimes are growing more violent. It grieves me and the people of Northern Ireland to see the media's lack of interest whenever Protestants and Unionist people are murdered. For months on end we heard stories every day about Gibraltar, but when three Protestants were murdered in Coagh last night, the media gave the event 30 seconds. The headlines in the daily papers do not mention the event—they gave the story five lines. The victims happen to be Unionists. I assure the House that if the attack had been carried out by anyone else, it would have made the headlines. If it had been carried out on anyone else the same would apply, hut for Unionists there are no headlines.
This is the facing down of Unionists, for which a certain political party called when seeking the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The IRA has faced down three innocent men. Their families asked me to ask the House when this is going to end. I should be glad to receive a promise from the Minister of State about that. What can I promise my constituents who are walking broken-hearted behind coffin after coffin? They are not facing threats: this is the real thing. I can tell them that the Government say that they accept recommendations for improving the emergency powers legislation, because we are moving in the right direction. The Government can bring in whatever emergency legislation they want, but unless they are willing to take the initiative and face the terrorists, they will never defeat them.
I beg the Secretary of State—he has the power—and the Prime Minister—she has the authority, as she has proved so often—to take resolute action to end the nightmare and the carnage in the Province which I love best and which is a part of this great Kingdom. I am sure that the House understands how I feel. I trust that right hon. and hon. Members will also understand that I must return to my constituency, and to the families of those murdered there. I want to listen to the rest of the debate, but I must leave for the airport. I trust that the next speaker will understand that no disrespect is meant, but will bear in mind that I must return to those families who will be burying their loved ones tomorrow.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who is my parliamentary neighbour, drew attention to media coverage of three recent deaths in Northern Ireland. He contrasted that coverage with that of other incidents. I was surprised that he did not draw attention to the endless stream of coverage of an author who has simply been threatened with death. That is another facet of the circumstances with which right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies must live. If a threat is made against an individual or groups of individuals in Britain, it is headline news. But whenever there is death in Ulster it will be lightly passed over as just another killing, unless it is a case of multiple death.
The victims of IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland are being killed because they want to be members and citizens of the nation. At the end of the day, those killings are not about sectarianism but are an attack on British citizenship and the British presence in the Province. I am part of that British presence. When the IRA talk of driving out the British, they are talking not about the fellow in a uniform


who comes from Kent or Glasgow, but about me, those who vote for me, and those whom I represent. That fact is one that the House steadfastly ignores.
When a similar debate took place at about this time last year, the cry that went up was about the bombing at Enniskillen and about the tragedy and horror of the multiple death there. Had the debate occurred a week later, the cry would have gone up instead—as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster—about the deaths of three would-be murderers in Gibraltar. A fortnight or so later, that crazy madman Stone was seen running through a cemetery murdering people. If our debate had occurred three days after that incident, it could have concerned itself with the butchering of Corporal Wood and Corporal Howes by people who are worse than wild animals, as we saw on our television screens.
The same Ministers are in the House today as one year ago. Five or 10 years ago, their predecessors were wending the same weary path, for the same weary reasons—the lack of proper understanding and of proper measures being taken to resolve the conflict. The incidents of the past year have highlighted the need to control funerals, for example. I interrupted the Secretary of State to ask for an assurance that the power to control funerals is to remain. My belief is that funerals should be very strictly controlled, no matter which murderer is being buried.
Funerals give the IRA and others an opportunity to display their power to intimidate and to do their own thing in their own areas. Those displays are as much a challenge to the security forces and to the governance of Northern Ireland as any IRA attack, such as that which occurred yesterday. They serve as a proclamation that the area in which the display takes place is one in which the IRA can operate. I draw the attention of the House to the almost casual arrogance now being displayed in IRA killings. The soldier murdered in Londonderry city recently was killed not in the heart of a republican area but right in the heart of the loyalist stronghold there. Ten years ago, the IRA would not have dared to do that. It would not have dared when the present Administration came to office. The fact that it does now illustrates the IRA belief that it is making progress, which further illustrates the Government's failure to deal with the situation.
I think back to the funeral last year that led to the deaths of two young soldiers who simply took the wrong turning, and I wonder who told the security forces to stay away. I wonder what pressures and subtle nuances were brought to bear to keep the security forces away from that IRA funeral. I wonder who told the security forces not to interfere, even when those two young soldiers were being butchered. A "chopper" fitted with a television camera was hovering overhead, observing it all, yet apparently no effort was made to rescue the two individuals who were being killed. That still angers and niggles Ulster people, who have not yet been given the answers that they want.
At the beginning of the debate, reference was made to the winning of hearts and minds. In a way, I think that that is the wrong policy. It is said that the security forces representing the Government should try to win hearts and minds by staying away from funerals, for example, because their presence will be resented. The House, the Government, the nation and the security forces should instead set about convincing the IRA and Irish

republicanism in general that they are not going to win. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to note that I am referring to violent IRA republicanism, because that is the well from which all other terrorist organisations ultimately draw their sustaining strength. The activities of the IRA are given as an excuse for Protestant paramilitary attacks and other endless acts of violence. If the IRA problem is solved, the Protestant paramilitary problem will deteriorate, decay and disappear along with it. The conquest and destruction of the IRA is the key to peace in Northern Ireland. Until that fact is faced, and until measures are taken to bring about that conquest, things will go on in the same old way.
For the IRA, winning is the achievement of a united Ireland. It is as simple and as straightforward as that. It does not matter to the average IRA man or republican whether it is an all-Ireland republic dominated by Charles Haughey or by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I would not dominate anyone.

Mr. Ross: But the hon. Gentleman would no doubt be part of a nationalist party, and it would be a nationalist-dominated Ireland. It would be a nationalist Ireland with a nationalist ethos, which is something that I and the people whom I represent would reject.
The IRA does not really give two hoots, any more than its supporters, which is the dominant republican nationalist element, provided that there is an all-Ireland republic. They are not even very worried whether it is Labour, Left-wing, centre or Right-wing, provided that it is an all-Ireland republic. They would be happy with that, but I would not. The failure to comprehend the nature of the Northern Ireland situation is the root cause of the Government's failure to devise policies that would be totally effective in bringing peace and stability. I have left out the bit about reconciliation because reconciliation is the result of many years of peace and stability and of people living together. I do not think that we shall fall into each other's arms if the IRA stops murdering people tomorrow.
Since last year some incidents have broken through the normal crust which leads to people ignoring Northern Ireland. I shall mention a few of them. Last August an Army bus was bombed and a number of young men were butchered on their way back from leave. Then we had the Father Ryan affair, over which there was a great deal of hubbub, froth and hot air. Now there is a sort of embarrassed silence because he has vanished into thin air and the chances of getting him back to stand trial here are a very short way above nil, if they are above it at all.
Yesterday we had the incident in Coagh. There was also a bomb find, apparently where weaponry was being prepared to attack the Prime Minister when she visits Scarborough. Throughout the year there was continuing public and private evidence of a border that is practically afloat in Semtex and weapons. All the evidence available to anyone who takes an interest in Ulster or to those like me who live in it and represent people there shows that Government policy is not defeating the IRA.
Now and again the people who live on this side of the Irish sea see the tip of what I can only describe as the moral cowardice of the Government in dealing with this matter. Facing the terrorists is not a matter of physical courage


because many people are willing to do that. What we see is moral cowardice, an unwillingness to stand up to the propaganda, the lies and the nonsense with which we are taunted throughout the world by the supporters of the IRA murder gangs. That moral cowardice is illustrated by the story of a young paratrooper who was walking around on guard with an empty weapon. Perhaps that is an advance, because I think that at one stage they walked around with pickaxe shafts. That is not much good against a Colt 45.
When I was in the Ulster Special Constabulary, of which I was glad to be a member and proud to serve for 16 years, I never saw the sort of creatures who are often described by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. We rarely went about with unloaded rifles. We had charged magazines in the rifles. Anyone who knows anything about shooting knows that that means that the bolt has only to be pulled backwards and forwards and the weapon can be fired. That is the way in which every soldier on guard outside any military establishment should be armed and ready.
We are sending these lads out to wander about with unloaded weapons. They are young men in crack regiments of what we are told is the best army in the world. I believe that. We are sending them out with unloaded weapons, as if their expensive training was so ineffective as to render them incapable of handling loaded weapons. That is nonsense and I hope that the people of Britain have seen the end of that nonsense in this incident. I hope that the next time a paratrooper or some other soldier or naval officer or member of the RAF Regiment walks round the corner of a building and sees a terrorist planting a 60 lb Semtex bomb, he will at least be able to fire at him.
Regardless of when the next shooting incident takes place I hope that we shall not hear in the House and everywhere else claims that "these people are out shooting to kill". Who the devil ever shot to miss? People are meant to shoot to kill, to stop, and if a modern weapon is fired at a body it will cause severe damage, and the person will be extremely lucky to survive. That is what the weapons and ammunition presently issued to the Army are for and they do their job very effectively. I regret that the job is not done often enough.
If I went to any pub in London tonight—leaving out those that are peopled by the Irish—or if I went anywhere else in Britain and asked the average Englishman, Scotsman or Welshman what he thinks should be done with the IRA or terrorists, he would give exactly the same answer as I give and would probably do it rather more crudely than I would like to do in your presence, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Mallon: That would be indelicate.

Mr. Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first and possibly the last time.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Has the hon. Member considered what would have happened if the sentry on duty at Shrewsbury, having secured his ammunition, had been able to fire accurately at those who were running away? At that stage they had not blown up the barracks. If he had killed one of them, under our present state of law, he would surely have been charged with murder. Does that not show that our present criminal law simply does not apply to the reality of terrorism in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ross: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. He will remember the two corporals butchered in Belfast in March last year and that one of them leaned out of the car window with a pistol. If an Ulsterman had been leaning out of the window with that pistol, I wonder whether everyone facing him would have been alive 110 seconds later? That soldier was acting under the rules of engagement about which we heard from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. Members of the security forces are out in places where they are likely to be killed and the law should reflect that reality. The Government should not behave as if they are dealing with a peaceful English village on a summer afternoon. Sometimes we read in the newspapers about little riots in such places, so perhaps they are not so peaceful.
An IRA man or any terrorist with a gun has one intention. It is to plant a bomb or to kill, and he is already psyched up to do it. He will kill as quickly as a snap of the fingers. A police officer friend of mine stopped a person one day in the street in Dungiven, my own village, to ask a question and it ended in him being buried.
The House and the country should recognise the reality of the situation in Ulster. This House does not think that we are at war, but the IRA figures that it is at war with us and its attitude is that anything goes. I do not want to enter that sewer where anything goes but the laws of the realm should reflect the reality of the task that we have asked our security forces to carry out. The laws that we are debating are not doing that. We should also understand that when incidents such as the one in Gibraltar happen there will be massive howls of indignation.
The Secretary of State spoke about the propaganda war. The Government lack the commitment to ensure a better and louder propaganda statement. That propaganda must be founded upon truth to rebut the misrepresentations put out by the terrorist organisations.
This debate must end at 7 o'clock. It is somewhat better attended than many on this issue—and I have been sitting through such debates for 15 years. However, it should not end with the discussion in this House; it should go on within the parties—and principally within the party of government—to ensure that the changes that are absolutely vital are made. This legislation should be part of the whole policy of convincing the IRA—those who, for many years, have been prepared to risk life, limb anti liberty—that the game is not worth the candle. That is what it is all about—convincing them that they are going to lose.
But convincing them that they are going to lose is only partly a question of law; it is also very largely a question of the perception of Government intention as to where Ulster will be five, 10 or 20 years hence. Unless the Government's actions are sustained, it will not be possible to convince the supporters of the IRA that the IRA will fail, that the republicans will fail, that the nationalists will fail, that the SDLP will fail, in their objective of bringing, about a united Ireland. So long as that policy continues, the war will continue at the steady drip, drip, drip of murder that we have seen for the last few years. In that respect things have not changed very much.
A new Chief Constable has just been appointed. The politicisation of the police in Northern Ireland under the Anglo-Irish Agreement is far greater and far more evident than that which was alleged under the Stormont regime. I wonder how much discussion there was, within the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, about the appointment of


the new Chief Constable. Indeed, the Government are duty bound to listen to what the Irish Government say. Should the British Government not introduce the matter into the discussions, the Irish Republic's Ministers certainly would, as they would be duty bound to do.
How much discussion took place as to who the new Chief Constable should be? How much discussion was there about what sort of man would be acceptable to the nationalist community? Of course, we shall not get an answer. That information will remain hidden perhaps for ever—or at least for 30 years. The Minister replying to this debate will deny that any such discussions took place, but in Northern Ireland his denials will have about as much effect as would throwing a bucket of water on a duck. People will not readily believe them.
Under article 7 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is relevant to this debate, the conference considers security policy. This calls into question whether the Secretary of State and his Ministers could easily act in defiance of Dublin's wishes. Given that they are required to work towards agreement with the Government of the Irish Republic, how on earth could they ever arrive at a new effective policy in the short term? Only after the most protracted discussions in the conference could any new policy appear.
Appointments to the police authority also have to be discussed. To say that these matters do not strike at the very root of the problem in Northern Ireland is to ignore the factual evidence. I wonder whether the new Chief Constable has been given a timetable for the defeat of the IRA, and what policy restrictions are to be placed upon him and upon the other security forces. Given the circumstances under which the Chief Constable is appointed and the circumstances in which he operates, how could anyone say that he is independent? He has to sit with his political masters and with his opposite number from Dublin and his political masters—and the Republic has a very political police force. Bearing all these things in mind, one can only conclude that the political influence that was complained of in the past has not only returned but been reintroduced in a form a dozen times stronger.
Unless there is a deep and fundamental change in Government policy, we shall be talking in the same terms next year, and the year after that, and for many years to come. The perspective of the terrorist is what matters. The terrorist believes that he has made progress and is making progress. His whole attitude and all of his actions—no doubt some people in this place do not understand those actions because they do not live with them—indicate that what he perceives is Government retreat and republican advance.
We shall be back next year, and in five years' time, and in 10 years' time, unless there is a deep, fundamental change in Government policy, and unless the new policy is acted upon. Otherwise, the IRA will go on, quietly, steadily, mercilessly, and with ruthless efficiency, killing in dribs and drabs and sometimes in large numbers, to keep the temperature high and to undermine the will of the people to remain British. But we shall not allow our birthright, our nationhood and the things that we believe in to be taken from us by such people. I can assure this House that we shall be there for a long time—British, and being killed because we want to stay British.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The agony of the bloody conflict in Northern Ireland has been going on for over 20 years, and in its wake the constitutional government of the Province has been set aside. Normal local government has been virtually abolished. Transitional constitutional experiments, designed to give the minority a share of power, even to the extent of allowing a foreign country the right of consultation, have been tried and have failed.
All those developments were designed to placate the minority in Northern Ireland, who would rather be governed by the Irish Republic than by the United Kingdom. British Governments of all persuasions have thought that, if those people could be placated, they would not support the terrorist campaign, which seeks to achieve republican aims by violence. But that is wrong, and it has always been wrong. The violence has not ceased; indeed, since the conclusion of the last desperate expedient—the Anglo-Irish Agreement—it has escalated.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I have used over the past 10 years against these foolish efforts to appease our enemies in Ulster. I pay tribute to the courage and integrity of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, but I have to say that all their efforts have failed and that the British Government are left with a situation which, in some ways, is worse than it has ever been. Far from being abated by the Government's efforts at conciliation, the hostility and resentment of a significant part of the Irish republican minority in Northern Ireland has been aggravated by a situation in which they see themselves as the political masters, whereas they once thought of themselves as the underdogs. The majority of the population—loyal, but often sullen and anxious, and fearful of being abandoned by a Conservative Government they can no longer look on as a trusted friend have—suspended their judgment, and most of their representatives now sit opposite the Government in the House of Commons.
The scope is small for further political initiatives to end the constitutional impasse and terrorism. The only outstanding initiative, which has not been taken up so far, lies in the Irish Prime Minister summoning Unionist leaders to Dublin as though to hear his terms for a settlement.
Devolution has failed, as it inevitably must when we try to isolate in one cockpit two warring, incompatible elements divided by race and Church. The continuing habit of British Ministers in such circumstances to repeat the cry of devolution as though it were some possible solution makes one wonder at their common sense. A further long period of stalemate and attrition faces us. The agony, torment and suffering of the good British people of Ulster seems destined to go on, reinforcing misery, deepening divisions, and providing new agents and new recruits of bitterness and hostility to carry on the conflict which many people now believe that neither side can win while Northern Ireland remains in its present form. The IRA has made it quite impossible—it is quite out of the question—for any loyal Ulsterman even to contemplate a united Ireland.
One honourable option is still open to us. I know that I am presently much in the minority of Unionists who advocate it. It is to provide for an exercise in self-determination in Northern Ireland by way of a


referendum designed to identify those who wish to remain in the United Kingdom and those who wish to live in the Irish Republic. Where, in border areas, a majority exists for the Irish Republic, let those areas secede from the United Kingdom. For the rest, let a similar logic apply—generous resettlement grants for those who find themselves on what they may consider to be the wrong side of the new border. That would be a drastic and costly remedy to the situation in Northern Ireland, but only a drastic step will detach the republican population from the IRA. That remedy would not he nearly as costly as the continuation of the present situation.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: One of the tragedies of this type of debate is that we never seem to deal with the subject that we are supposed to be discussing. In this instance, we are discussing the emergency provisions legislation as it applies in the North of Ireland and also references to it by Viscount Colville of Culross. During this debate, there has been remarkable insight into some attutudes not just to this subject but to the context in which that legislation is to operate. I can understand the anger and resentment that was expressed by hon. Members who represent the Unionist community in the North of Ireland, but we should never allow that anger, or the sentimentality that it produces, to cloud our judgment of the challenge that faces us.
The challenge is simple. It is how to get a solution to the awful problem that faces all of us, not just in Northern Ireland but in Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Whatever type of thinking we bring to it, the problem does not stop at the border or the coastline. It transcends them. It is a three-part problem that will require everybody's resources, commitment and resolve.
Throughout the debate, I have been reminded of the famous words of Wilfred Owen about war situations:
The poetry is in the pity.
I like to think that we can get to a stage in Northern Ireland at which the politics are in the pity and that the pity that was clearly expressed today could translate itself into the type of political attitude in which, rather than getting bogged down in the type of emotional binge that we all indulge in so often, we try to think our way out of the problem. I hope that, somewhere along the line, anger, resentment and pity can be translated into the type of practical politics that alone will solve the problem.
This has been a political debate. The only time we get a chance to debate the political problem in Northern Ireland is during a debate on a piece of emergency legislation. Unfortunately, the political context is tied to an emotive matter. Since I have been elected to the House, there has not been a time when the purely political element of a debate could be discussed in a more rational manner. That is one of the tragedies.
I should like to dispel some of the problems enunciated by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). He talked about nationalists' wish to dominate people on the island of Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the nationalists whom my party represents firmly believe in nationalism and are absolutely opposed to the use of violence to obtain their political objectives. They do not wish to dominate anyone. They have no desire to indulge in domination, not only because of the human elements concerned but because, if history has taught us anything, it has clearly shown that domination will never solve any

problem. I take this opportunity of informing the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues—I have said it before in such debates, and I shall say it again—that the problem will not be solved on the Floor of the House of Commons.
It has been interesting to note almost schizophrenia on the part of some hon. Members—their irrational fear of nationalism and disillusionment with membership of the House, while proclaiming their Britishness. Political Unionism is expressing its disillusionment with its British context, its British presence arid membership of the House. That schizophrenia affects all people and not just unionism in the North of Ireland. We must patiently try to work it out. The immediate image that sprang to mind during the debate was of the magnificent play, written not so long ago, called "Observe the sons of Ulster Marching Towards the Somme". It was almost as if we could hear those footsteps again, blaming the British connection for their own failure to work out a means of living peacefully on a small piece of land called Ireland. That is the basis of the political approach that my party would offer those people who live with us.
I am not one who likes to get up here or anywhere else wearing my heart on my sleeve. I am a villager as well. I live in a small village. I lifted a policeman up one night, shot dead by people who call themselves Irish patriots. I lifted up my own election agent one night from his doorstep, riddled with bullets, dead. I do not want to go into that. It is not the way forward. All we are doing is clouding our own judgment. All we are doing is losing sight of the objective, which is to solve this problem.
But I understand the emotions that exist about Coagh. It is a small village. Everyone knows it. I could pick out three people in my own village who would be mirror images of those who were killed. We could do it for every village in the North of Ireland. So it is not just an isolated feeling of pity. One of the strengths of our situation is that the pity is there, the abhorrence of that terrible sectarian deed is there, throughout the North of Ireland. Rather than let it become an end in itself, I would ask that it become a springboard for consideration of our problems.
The problem is nothing new. Nationalism has been used in a very throwaway sense here this evening. People in the North of Ireland, however, were killing each other in the same way long before nationalism became a force. The famous massacre on the river Bann in Portadown took place in the 17th century, long before nationalism became the vogue, as it did as a result of the French revolution, and long before it became a potent force in Irish life before and after partition. We have on record sectarian assassination after sectarian assassination in the county that I live in, long before nationalism became either a political or a physical force. So the problem is more profound.
Yet it may be much simpler than we often make it. How do we, a small group of people living on a small island, decide together how we will live there for the benefit of-everyone, how we will live in peace, with nobody winning" with no domination, with no surrender on anyone's part? I suggest that we start looking at that question. It struck me tonight, as it has often struck me, that if we spent more time in the House discussing how we might solve the problem, or even the same amount of time as we have spent on this piece of legislation and the prevention of terrorism legislation and the public order legislation, and on and on, perhaps somewhere we would get some light and some insight into the way that we must move.
I want to reassure those who represent Unionists in the North of Ireland that domination has no part in our political philosophy. Victory has no part in our political philosophy. We believe that, it they look at this problem simply as an extension of the House, it will not be solved, because we are all optional extras in the Palace of Westminster. Nobody from the North of Ireland needs to be told that. One of the roots of Unionism's anger and frustration is that Unionists are only now realising what perhaps others of us have seen from the outside for so long. Nor will it be solved on the floor of Dail Eireann. I have been there and I realised that in many ways I was again an optional extra from a different place. But we will solve this problem, when we solve it, with the help of the House, the active help and involvement of the House and of Dail Eireann in getting to grips with it. Then we shall be in a position to begin to talk rationally about this and other pieces of legislation and see where they fit into the overall jigsaw.
I do not want to make light of the problem of not talking about the emergency provisions, because they are very serious indeed. There is the problem of policing. Viscount Colville has said that there is a problem, and we all know that there is a problem. If there is a problem, let us, for heaven's sake, face it. Let us start talking about it. I am frustrated when, time and time again, we get platitudes from Ministers. They stand up, pat us on the head and take almost a different position every month to see what the reaction may be.
We must face the reality that, in almost half the land mass of the North of Ireland, there is not a single policeman. That is a fundamental problem. So we must ask two questions: why is it that way, and how can we deal with it? It is correct to say that one of the reasons is that they would be killed, but the problem is much more fundamental than that as well. So do we ever get an opportunity from the Government to begin to discuss the problems, or do we spend the rest of our political lives feeding on the type of platitude that we often hear?
We must also look at the very factor that Lord Colville identifies—the relationship between the community, the police and the security forces. He identifies that as one of the problems, and it is a big one. How do we deal with that type of relationship? Bad policing is having a terrible and corrosive effect. It is counter-productive. Viscount Colville clearly identifies that, and I am glad that he does so. He puts it right at the forefront of his report, in the hope that something will be done about it.
I take this opportunity of asking the Secretary of State and the Minister of State what they will do to ensure that it is driven home to those charged with looking after law and order that policing must be done on a fair and equitable basis and within their own rules. They must tell me. And, no thanks, I want no more platitudes—I have had enough of them. I want to know what steps will be taken. I agree with Viscount Colville when he makes it clear that senior police officers realise that this is a very important issue which must be dealt with.
What will be done at the political level by the Government to ensure that that realisation filters down from the senior officers to the ranks? If the problem continues, it is due to one of two things: either the senior officers and the Ministers do not make their writ run, or

the junior officers involved in these incidents are cocking a snook at those who are giving the orders. It is one or the other, and it is so serious that I ask again, as I have asked so often, what steps will be taken to deal with it.
Viscount Colville focuses on the problems of both the Police Complaints Commission and the complaints procedure for the Army. To date, the new Police Complaints Commission has been a fairly abysmal failure. It has a flaccid, passive approach to dealing with the legislation that it is given. While that legislation is inadequate in many ways, it is at least there to be used, but it has not been used by an inactive commission, with the result that the commission in its own way is counter-productive when it comes to the problems that will be faced by a new Chief Constable.
I welcome that appointment. I do not know the man from Adam. I do not know his religion. It makes no difference to me where he is from—Dublin or Belfast—or what his religion is. All I want to know is whether he is a good cop. Does he know what he is doing? Has he the strength to go in there and look at the problems and not pretend that they do not exist? Has he the strength to go through with his decisions and to ensure that those decisons will help to bring about a solution to a policing problem which has always been there? Has he the vision to look at policing structures and to see whether there is a way within those structures in which we can get to grips with the problem? We talk about policing as an amorphous thing. There are 48 police services in England and Wales and eight in Scotland. Northern Ireland has a structural problem. Perhaps at some time we will have the vision to consider how we can deal with that element of the problem.
Reluctantly, I turn to something which affected the debate earlier, which was the reference by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to the position of solicitors in the North of Ireland. My views on that are on record, and I do not want to enter into that controversy again. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that, in a letter, the Under-Secretary talked about "remarks attributed to me". He repeated that allegation 11 times. I am wondering whether he is saying that that was attributed to him 11 times.
Much more importantly, the Under-Secretary began by saying, "I have been advised". Who advised the Under-Secretary to put those remarks on record? He must have been advised, because he displayed an absymal ignorance about everything else about the North of Ireland. Who told him that that was the position? Only three agencies could have told him—first, his Government colleagues; secondly. the police and Army authorities in the North of Ireland; thirdly, lay people. The Under-Secretary owes it to the House and to the people in the North of Ireland to tell us who advised him to put his foot in it to the extent to which he did.
I believe that we must draw together all these pieces of legislation. Their re-enactment will again come before the House in 1992. We have the prevention of terrorism Act, the emergency provisions Acts, the public order legislation and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as it applies to the North of Ireland. When one starts to deal with those, especially in Committee, it is a nightmare, because one is jumping from one piece of legislation to another. It is almost impossible to follow the strands, because there are contradictions, elements which overlap and elements


which simply do not make any sense. There is an opportunity to discard some of the elements that Lord Colville and others have recommended we should discard.
I have argued the case for normality so often that I shall not detain the House with it again. If the emergency legislation must be repeated, at least let it be repeated in a way which makes logistical sense, because as it stands there is provision for some elements of the emergency provisions Acts in the public order legislation that is applied under the prevention of terrorism Act. It is a nightmare not just for people in the House who must deal with it, but for police officers, solicitors and, above all, for the person who is arrested under that legislation.
I have seen at first hand the financial sacrifices, inconvenience and hardship caused to people who come to this country to visit their relatives in prison. It does not make any humanitarian sense to stick strictly by the letter of the law and to say that people from Ireland—especially Northern Ireland—must serve out their sentences here if they were committed here. The hardship caused to relatives is a hidden factor, something that we are ignoring. I ask that the process of transferring prisoners from gaols in Britain to serve out their sentence in Northern Ireland be speeded up. We can then bring a little humanitarianism, consideration and pity into an otherwise harsh landscape of emergency legislation.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope to mention at least one of the points made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
Recently I saw a poster issued, I believe, by one of the Northern Irish political parties in which superimposed on the word "Terrorism" was the slogan:
Defeat it, don't debate it.
After 20 years of violence and yet one more debate, one might feel that the poster's author had a point. However, with all their imperfections and inadequacies, debates on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts enable us both to debate and to maintain the legal structure within which our security forces must operate at all times.
On this occasion, there is another dimension to the debate. It is taking place while the review period for the Anglo-Irish Agreement is proceeding. Three years ago when the agreement was announced to the House, we were told that its objectives were to secure peace, stability and reconciliation: that by the agreement security on both sides of the border would be improved with much greater co-operation between the Garda and the RUC and, therefore, peace might become a reality in the Province. We were told that, through the ministerial meetings that were enshrined in the agreement, matters of mutual interest would be discussed and that the concerns of the minority community in the North would have a powerful new advocate in the shape of the Dublin Government. Sadly, what the agreement lacked—and one of the reasons why I voted against it—was any place in its machinery for the voice to be heard of the majority community in the Province. For that reason it was, and remains, seriously flawed. I hope that during the review process that flaw will be put right. Although I may be told that the Unionists will not accept the agreement anyway, nevertheless, if that agreement is ever to obtain acceptability among the majority in the Province, it can do so only if they have a

voice in its counsels. To this day it has amazed me that we felt that we could sign such a treaty without incorporating that obvious need.
Of course, in some quarters there is the hope that the continuing hostility to the agreement from the Unionist parties and the events in the South over extradition will, in fact, result in the agreement being shelved altogether—somehow or other it will wither on the branch and will die a natural death. I wonder if that is a realistic scenario. Apart from the fact that, as far as I know, no British Government has ever unilaterally broken a treaty, what would be the effect on Irish politics and international opinion if under pressure from one part of the community the Government gave up the agreement? I believe that it would be catastrophic. Those who want to believe that the Catholic minority is always under threat from the Protestant majority would have their worst fears confirmed.
Irish America would be incensed and would no doubt multiply many times over its contributions to Noraid. The IRA would have a field day. It would have scored such a major propaganda victory as to give it new hope and zest to continue its fearful and bloody campaign of violence, another terrible example of which were the killings in county Tyrone yesterday.
Would the Province suddenly become more peaceful? Would the minority community be more willing to co-operate with the Government? Would the security forces or the RUC get co-operation from the minority community if the agreement was torn up? Would we be any nearer to seeing the Acts that we are debating tonight lapse if that happened? I believe that the only answer to all those questions is a resounding no.
For all practical purposes I consider that the agreement must stand and that the Unionist parties must modify their refusal to co-operate with the Secretary of State and his Ministers as they seek a way in which to implement the words in the Queen's Speech about allowing local politicians greater involvement in the affairs of the Province.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman change his view were it possible to negotiate a better agreement which would command wider support than the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Why would the hon. Gentleman want to hold on to an agreement that has so lamentably failed and that does not have the consent of the community if it were possible to get an agreement which the Unionist leaders would consider as an alternative to and replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement or the Social Democratic and Labour party leader would consider as transcending in importance that agreement?

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman as I was just about to say exactly what he said. If the agreement has failed to deliver peace, stability and reconciliation, what useful purpose does it serve? Standing on its own and after three years perhaps not much, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that cross-border co-operation has greatly improved, even if we cite as evidence only the huge arms finds north and south of the border. Those finds have done much to negative the threat posed by the shipment of explosives and weapons from Libya to the IRA. We all recognise that those arms finds are extremely important to the lives of a great many people, particularly in the North.
The acceptance in writing of the status of the Province set out in the treaty could be, if we chose it to be, the beginning of a new stability for Northern Ireland. It could be seen as a way to achieving peace and reconciliation. As so many speakers have already said we all know that terrorism thrives on—indeed, seeks to create—instability, the feeling that nothing is permanent and that everything is up for grabs. That is why each failed political initiative in Northern Ireland has ultimately played into the hands of the IRA and those who believe that the instability of the Province serves their political ends.
While Ulster is without an assembly or a regional administration and the political parties that represent the majority of her people boycott the Secretary of State and his efforts to create a local forum—while there is a political vacuum in the Province—those politicians are working against their own best interests. I also question whether they are completely in step with certain bodies of opinion in the Province if the recent poll in Sunday Life—a local Sunday newspaper in Northern Ireland—of 26 February is anything to go by. That survey showed that of those polled, 78 per cent. of Protestants and 57 per cent. of Catholics preferred power sharing to other options such as integration or a federal Ireland. In fact, more Catholics even preferred that option to a united Ireland. No one suggests that one poll is conclusive evidence, but it is a rough guide to local feeling—nobody can gainsay that.
If, as the poll suggested, it is also true that a majority of Ulster Unionists, SDLP and Alliance members and a sizeable proportion of the Democratic Unionist party were in favour of the Duisburg inter-party talks, is it not possible that the desire for a new political structure in the Province—one which would give Ulstermen a proper share in the administration of the six counties, their counties—could, if taken up seriously, lead to a political institution from which the entire community could benefit and reconciliation become a reality?
According to the agreement, the involvement of the southern Government in the affairs of the Province are or would be limited by the extent of the responsibilities given to a devolved administration. Surely that is a prize to make the most anti-agreement politican ask whether non-cooperation with the Northern Ireland Office is now not self-defeating.

Mr. Harry Barnes: A democracy of devolved institutions is more than just majority rule—majority rule has caused some of the problems in Northern Ireland. Even if the political parties share a desire to come together, how the politics work out might mean that majority rule leads to a situation in which the minority feel oppressed. In those circumstances, would it not be a good idea for a bill of rights to accompany any move towards devolved government? In that way the minority, as well as the majority, would feel that their civil liberties were protected. In that way the conditions in which democracy could work would be improved as democracy is not just about votes, but about the spirit in which it operates.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I do not dissent from that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard me refer to power sharing as the favoured option of the majority in both the Catholic and Protestant communities. The hon.

Gentleman must be aware that the Duisburg talks involved the SDLP, the Unionists and the DUP. I am not suggesting, nor would anyone else suggest, that we should go back to old style majority rule. I am talking about a local administration and I would like the Government to spell out the framework in which such an administration could be created.

Mr. John D. Taylor: On the suggestion of a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland with power sharing between those who want a united Ireland and those who are British—in other words, the nationalists and the Unionists—does the hon. Gentleman extend the sample principle to Scotland? Is he in favour of power sharing between the Scottish Nationalists and the Scottish Conservatives in Edinburgh?

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not pursue that particular argument. I believe that he was a member of a Government in Northern Ireland who were certainly prepared to offer some of the chairmanship of their committees to the other political parties that were not in the majority in the old Stormont. I may be wrong, but I believe that that was the case. I do not believe that my suggestions would differ widely from that because the right hon. Gentleman will note that I have stressed the word administration. I believe that there would be committees covering various aspects of that administration and I understand that there is wide agreement that the chairmanship of those committees could be spread among the parties.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I agree with the sharing of chairmanships among the parties, but with regard to the former Stormont Parliament I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the nationalist Member for Mourne was the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information and I hope that I have been able to clarify the point he made.
In a sense my peroration is rather ruined; perhaps that is no bad thing. I believe secure borders and a stable local administration to be the most effective answers to the terrorist who seeks to manipulate the region's politics out of the barrel of his gun. Are they not the way to stability and peace for the future?

Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned a point about which I have felt deeply for rather more years than he has—that we never discuss the politics of Northern Ireland or Ireland without there being some kind of emergency or emergency legislation. In Committee, we have discussed emergency provisions to the point of exhaustion, but one point that has stood out in today's debate has been the avoidance, by almost all hon. Members, of discussing what we came here to discuss—the renewal of the Acts. There is a good political reason for that and it is linked precisely with the fact that politics breaks through, whether we like it or not. All hon. Members have discussed the politics of Northern Ireland today and have only occasionally mentioned the emergency provisions legislation.
To make matters worse this time, we have just heard of the dreadful and melancholy killings, although all our debates on Northern Ireland are melancholy. It is a sad business, but a harsh reality, that people who have such a sense of humour should never use it in debate. The emergency provisions legislation has hardly been mentioned because it is almost irrelevant to the problems. That is one reason, among others, why I shall be voting against the renewal of the provisions for the umpteenth time tonight.
The overwhelming majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland—the extremely overwhelming majority, if one can say that—on both sides of the sectarian divide are honest and law-abiding people who want to live in peace and democracy. For as long as I can remember, they have not been given the chance to do that. The problem burst through, for the umpteenth time, about 20 years ago. When I became a Member of Parliament—15 years ago this week—I never dreamed that we would go on discussing the problem, as it had been raised in 1973 and the civil rights march had taken place in 1969. We must, therefore, while struggling against the paramilitaries of both sides, protect all innocent people from arbitrary arrest and harassment. The harassment is often not directly physical, but springs from the terrible situation in Northern Ireland which makes all the population of Northern Ireland—innocent and law-abiding as they are—feel that they are part of the struggle across the sectarian divide and causes them to see no hope of getting anywhere. If we do not realise that when we are discussing the emergency provisions and if we do not realise that people who have never harmed anyone feel that everything is hopeless and that they are getting nowhere, we are not seeing the situation properly. It is wrong that we do not discuss the politics of Northern Ireland in straightforward debate without it always being tied to emergency legislation.
This morning,the publicity Member of Parliament for the Official Unionist party—the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—was on the radio and, once again, he called for internment. It is extremely sad that, after all we have learned, he should be calling, once again, for internment. I believe that, in fact, internment can still be used, although it is not being used at present. To call for internment once again is to pour petrol on the terrible fire that is once again raging in Northern Ireland. I cannot understand why anybody who has been immersed in the struggle for so many years would call for that, although my heart goes out to the people who live there and I say that in every debate. I do not live there and when I listen to the people, from both sides, who do, I am staggered at their courage.
For such a person to call for one of the causes of the deepening struggle in Northern Ireland was shocking. The gaoling of people whom we do not know to be guilty is a real crime. It immediately intensifies the problem. It brings the detainees' families into the struggle when the detainees have never even been tried. It is shocking to have an important Member of Parliament calling for internment when he knows that in flinging what he called the godfathers into gaol without trial we would bring a whole new section of people in Northern Ireland into physical action and strengthen the hand of the paramilitaries on both sides. It would strengthen the IRA when, on present showing, it can go on indefinitely killing and maiming and

surely we want that to stop, not to intensify. There are no signs of the paramilitaries being defeated either by the security forces or by each other.
We shall go on discussing the problem long after I am gone if something political is not done. To raise the politics of Northern Ireland in the House is to be condemned straight away. Yet we would then be discussing the reality of what is happening and not the superficialities of the terrible deaths, killings and slaughter which continue all the time. We could go on discussing that as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) did. I know that it was hard for him because people had just been killed in his constituency, but we must discuss the causes and not just the symptoms of these terrible problems. There are no signs of either side being defeated. Both have considerable support in their communities and stores of armaments from various sources. They can carry on as they are, almost indefinitely, unless politics intervenes or supervenes.
The deadly enemy of terrorism is democracy, not defeating the other side or armaments. It is precisely because there was no real democracy in Northern Ireland that we are in this mess today. I must say to all Unionists that they still have the old Stormont mentality. All they want is to go back to the old Stormont, but that is impossible. However, as long as that mentality pervades their ranks, the slaughter will go on. That is the harsh reality which we never discuss here because we never discuss the politics of the situation.

Mr. Mallon: I do not think that that is the reality. Many Unionists now do not think in those terms and are desperately seeking, as we are, to see how we can get not just an arrangement, but a solution to the problem. If they are not prepared to put that on record, I may be forgiven for helping them out by doing so.

Mr. Flannery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me if I was wrong. I do not see the situation with the same clarity, but I do not see it with the optimism that he conveyed in his remarks either. I am surprised that he feels such optimism. I cannot sense it, but I hope that I am wrong and that he is right.
The House condemns terrorism by both sides. It is time that the Unionists did what I asked of one of them earlier today. They should condemn murders when committed by paramilitary loyalist groups and condemn the IRA when it carries out murders. They should condemn both, but they should not intensify the struggle by condemning only one side. We must condemn terrorism from both sides.
The present legislation has not done anything to stop the killings. The killings have intensified and there is considerable evidence that the Acts have exacerbated the problem and have not achieved anything held out by Lord Colville, or by Sir George Baker before him. I have attended almost every Northern Ireland debate and Question Time in the past 15 years and, once again, matters are becoming worse. There is no victory on the agenda in Northern Ireland for anyone. There is a problem to be faced, but no victory. The people who believe that they can be victorious are living in a dream world. They might want to smash the enemy and put him down, but if they did, he would rise again, whichever side he was on, Peace will come only when proof is given that equality and democracy will be given to both communities and that


there will be no return to the flagrant lack of democracy of the old Stormont, which brought about the civil rights march and the attack on it 20 years ago.

Mr. William: rose—

Mr. Flannery: No, I shall not give way because it is time for me to conclude my speech.
The only hope for peace is to ensure that the majority community never again enjoys a virtual autocracy over the minority community and that there is a coming together of the communities. There is no future in slaughtering each other. The only hope is for a change of mind on the part of the Unionists and for them to offer the hand of democracy to the minority community. I am sure that if that hand were reached out, the other side would heartily grip it and there would be peace, but that is the only hope that I can see.

Mr. Jim Marshall: We have had an interesting debate which has been highly charged in part. It is well that we remind ourselves of the people about whom we have been talking and of the reason the security forces claim to need the emergency powers. We are talking about the thousands, if not millions, of ordinary people who live in the Province who wish simply to go about their daily business unhindered and without the threat of violence. They wish to pursue what we consider to be ordinary objectives such as a job, a decent house, a decent school and all the other things that make up normal social and economic life for the rest of the United Kingdom.
We must always remember that that is the backcloth to our debates. Like the rest of the citizens of the United Kingdom, the people of Northern Ireland wish to live in peace and in a democratic society. That is why the Army went into the Province some years ago and that is why the emergency provisions legislation was introduced. It is as well to remind ourselves also that the Army entered the Province to uphold democratic values and to support, not supplant, the civilian authorities in upholding the rule of law. If that is the backcloth and those are the reasons, despite the cries for greater activity from some hon. Members, it inevitably means the minimum use of force and, where possible, the application of the general criminal law, and every derogation from those values must be justified. Our claim is that there has been a distinct failure to do that, especially in the Secretary of State's speech, and that is one reason why we shall vote against the order.
I should liketo make it clear that that does not mean any softening towards terrorism or acts or terrorism. Terrorism is inimical to the basic democratic instincts that the vast majority of Members of Parliament in the House share. I regret and reject the charge made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that there is a lack of resolve against terrorism. He charged the Government with a lack of resolve and, by implication, his charge was general against all parties in the House. I totally reject that charge if it was levelled at the Labour party. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will reject the charge equally vehemently on behalf of the Government.
We are not soft on terrorism. Terrorism must be defeated, but it must be defeated in a way that does justice

to the democratic values of our society and that does not use techniques or methods that would be more appropriate in a more authoritarian if not dictatorial society.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also gave the impression that the attitude of the IRA and its apparent freedom of movement suggest that the IRA thinks that it has won the battle. That is turning truth on its head. The frustration of the IRA and its inability to make real political progress, either north or south of the border, is shown by its increased use of violence in its attacks in the North of Ireland and in the attacks that it has sought to carry out in Great Britain. There is no way, politically, in which the IRA can win the hearts and minds of the majority of the minority community in the North of Ireland and there is no way in which the IRA can militarily defeat the security forces in the North of Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As election results have consistently shown that 30 per cent. of the Roman Catholic community votes for the terrorist party Sinn Fein, why does the hon. Gentleman think it impossible for Sinn Fein to advance from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent?

Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks in Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I said that Sinn Fein has failed to win the majority of the minority community in the North of Ireland. That is the position now. My best guess is that it would find it virtually impossible to secure the majority vote of the minority community in the North of Ireland—

Mr. John D. Taylor: Why?

Mr. Marshall: Because the majority of people in the minority community—as in the majority community—do not like being pushed around by bully boys. They want to lead normal lives and to live in peace with people across the community. It is for that reason that they share the same aspirations, desires and aims as all other ordinary people in the North of Ireland and why they do not share the aims and objectives of the gunmen and the terrorists.
As I have only four minutes left, I shall try to make further progress rapidly. I refer now to the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). In his absence I shall say only that I wish that the hon. Gentleman would show as much emotion and feeling when seeking to attain a political solution in Northern Ireland as he shows when bringing to the House one catalogue of death after another. The hon. Gentleman shows a high degree of emotion and feels highly emotional about the position. However, if he could divert his energy and emotion into positive avenues of seeking a political solution in Northern Ireland if only for a few seconds, Northern Ireland would be a far better place.
I turn finally to the comments of the Secretary of State. He singularly failed to give any justification of the measures that he is bringing forward for renewal today. He made two general assertions with which no one would disagree. I remind the Secretary of State of those two assertions. The first was that, in view of yesterday's and other recent events, the security forces require every assistance and support. I agree with that—everyone would agree with it. The second general assertion was that the perpetrators of such crimes must be brought to justice. Again, we all agree with that general assertion. However, the Secretary of State then sought to imply that, having


made those two general assertions, there was no need to seek to justify the measures in detail. That was a failure on the part of the Secretary of State this afternoon.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made clear, when we are seeking to justify changes from the normal criminal law and derogations from normal standards, it is vital that justifications are given and that they are convincing. The Secretary of State tried to hide his lack of any real argument in favour of the measure by drawing attention to progress made by the Government in other spheres, and he referred to jobs, equality of opportunity and housing. While the Government have made admirable progress in those areas, the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that unless there is political progress, with a determination on his part and that of the constitutional parties to get together and form a new political consensus in the North, all that admirable economic and social progress will count for naught.
I urge the Secretary of State, as I have in previous debates, to continue to seek talks with the constitutional parties, and I appreciate that that is his intention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed out, there is great need for politicians in the North to talk in terms of making political progress and not concentrate always on the evil aspects of the Province.
We need a body of criminal law in Northern Ireland which is clear, coherent and concise. We should dispense with all powers that are not really needed. There should be no duplication of powers and we should not fall into the trap of believing that the criminal law alone can solve the problems of Northern Ireland.
Because it fails to answer those challenges, we shall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, oppose the order tonight.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): This debate is taking place in the shadow of last night's atrocity in Coagh, and hon. Members present this evening appreciate the emotion of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who spoke about those whom he knew personally. But despite that emotion, we must lake decisions using judgment, according to our best advice and experience of the facts.
I heard with sadness from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that the Opposition would vote against the order tonight, because there is no subject about which one could say more strongly that the Government wished that they had no grounds to criticise the Opposition. If ever there was a subject on which a unity of purpose and approach was desirable in this House, it is this issue of the troubles and terrorism in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, we do not have that tonight. To use an Irish writer's phrase, the Labour party's attitude to terrorism is in a state of "chassis."
I recall that, when we debated what was then the Prevention of Terrorism Bill on Second Reading, some Opposition Members abstained, some voted for a reasoned amendment and some voted against. Tonight they have decided to vote against. I hope that some of them may be honourable enough to abstain, or even to vote in the Lobby with the Government.
I draw a contrast between what was said in this debate by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and his noble Friend Lord Mason who, when he had the responsibility for dealing with these problems, introduced and supported measures such as we are discussing tonight and ensured that the security forces had the powers they needed. Speaking in the other place recently in the context of prevention of terrorism legislation, Lord Mason said:
we stood together"—
referring to the 1970s—
with the major political parties behind us."—[official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 1989; Vol. 504. c. 34.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. If the Minister is quoting from a speech made by a Member of the other place who is not a Minister, will he please paraphrase?

Mr. Stewart: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Lord Mason said in another place that at that time basic freedoms were under serious threat and that bipartisan support was necessary. I regret that we have not had that in this debate.
When Labour Members were in office in the 1970s they were responsible for these issues and were determined to deal with the problem. I was sorry to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), because he seemed to be apologising for the position that his Front Bench was advocating. Opposition Members seem to have lost their grip on reality. They say that they are committed to the fight against terrorism, but they will not support any longer the measures that are necessary to conduct that fight. To will the end but not the means is a position of irresponsibility.
The Government have their responsibilities in this matter. We regret, just as Lord Colville regretted, that he had to conclude that there was reluctant acceptance of the need for emergency provisions of this kind. The powers which we seek to renew are a regrettable necessity. We do not view security policy in isolation. We do not want to leave a vacuum on the political front. We believe that progress towards political development and dialogue would help, but they would not achieve a solution on their own. Without the necessary powers, our security forces cannot pursue the campaign against terrorism which, alas, is essential in Northern Ireland today.
The Government will continue to deal robustly with terrorism within the law. With emergency legislation, it is always a question of balance and fine judgment. Measures must be powerful enough to be effective, but we must never lose that essential ingredient of fairness and general consideration towards the public, a point to which several hon. Members have referred.
Lord Colville emphasised, above all in what he said, that the comments made to him were not so much about the powers as about the way in which they were exercised. I wish to endorse again on behalf of the Government our commitment that all these powers should be implemented in a fair and impartial way, with courtesy and consideration, and that lapses—which occasionally, I am afraid, are bound to happen and are deeply to be regretted—must be as few as possible. We appreciate that they have an effect on public confidence and that the support of the community is a vital contributory factor in countering terrorism.
I hope that the independent commission for police complaints, which was not enthusiastically received by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), will prove to be an important instrument for dealing with complaints. We must bear in mind that the commission has not yet produced a report on its first 10 months of activity. I am sure that its establishment is an important innovation.
The fact that the Army has taken new measures to speed up the machinery for dealing with complaints demonstrates our belief that this is an important matter, and we support what Lord Colville said about the impact that it can make in the general campaign against terrorism.
To get the matter into perspective, with 10,000 regular troops and 6,000 members of the UDR in Northern Ireland, in the eight months to the end of January that represented nearly 4 million troop days of activity, and that has resulted in fewer than 200 complaints coming to Army headquarters, Northern Ireland. I wish that the number was smaller, but one must keep the situation in perspective.
I pay tribute to the members of the RUC, the Regulars and the Reserves, the UDR and the Regular soldiers for the way in which they, on behalf of the whole community—of the Government, the people of Great Britain and the people of Northern Ireland—at great risk to themselves—day after day, month after month and alas year after year—enable the people of Northern Ireland to live as normal a life as possible in difficult circumstances.
We are anxious to see an improvement in the security situation, and I am not without hope on that front. Significant finds of weaponry have been made in recent months in the North of Ireland, and also by the Gardai in the Republic. I am encouraged by the growing feeling of resentment in Northern Ireland about the futility of terrorism as a means of achieving any of the ends that the terrorists say they espouse.
There are better prospects now in Northern Ireland; they could be even better if terrorism could be seen to fail. Terrorism itself will never achieve anything but grief and waste. We need to ensure, under those circumstances, that the brave members of the security forces who carry such responsibilities on behalf of us all have the means to counter terrorism. They need the sort of powers that were introduced in the emergency provisions legislation of the 1970s and 1980s. They need the provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill which is going through Parliament—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question on the motion, pursuant to Order [3 March].

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 118.

Division No. 119]
[7 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Batiste, Spencer


Alton, David
Beggs, Roy


Amess, David
Bellingham, Henry


Amos, Alan
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Aspinwall, Jack
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baldry, Tony
Boswell, Tim


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Bottomley, Peter





Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Bowis, John
Howells, Geraint


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brazier, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bright, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Irvine, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Irving, Charles


Burns, Simon
Jack, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jackson, Robert


Butler, Chris
Janman, Tim


Butterfill, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kilfedder, James


Carrington, Matthew
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Carttiss, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cartwright, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cash, William
Kirkwood, Archy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knapman, Roger


Chapman, Sydney
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knox, David


Colvin, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cran, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lilley, Peter


Curry, David
Livsey, Richard


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
McCrindle, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dover, Den
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dunn, Bob
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Durant, Tony
Maclean, David


Dykes, Hugh
Maclennan, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evennett, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fallon, Michael
Madel, David


Favell, Tony
Mans, Keith


Fearn, Ronald
Maples, John


Fishburn, John Dudley
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Hon Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Forth, Eric
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Sir Hal


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mills, Iain


Franks, Cecil
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David


French, Douglas
Moate, Roger


Gale, Roger
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gardiner, George
Morrison, Sir Charles


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mudd, David


Gow, Ian
Needham, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Neubert, Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Pawsey, James


Heddle, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Price, Sir David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Raffan, Keith


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy






Rathbone, Tim
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Redwood, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Riddick, Graham
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Thorne, Neil


Ryder, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trippier, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Shelton, Sir William
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steel, Rt Hon David



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and


Stevens, Lewis
 Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)





NOES


Allen, Graham
Carl Me, Alex (Mont'g)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ashton, Joe
Clay, Bob


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Cohen, Harry


Battle, John
Coleman, Donald


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim


Bidwell, Sydney
Crowther, Stan


Blunkett, David
Cryer, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boyes, Roland
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Buckley, George J.
Dixon, Don


Callaghan, Jim
Dobson, Frank


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Dunnachie, Jimmy





Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fisher, Mark
Mallon, Seamus


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Foster, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Meale, Alan


Galloway, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morgan, Rhodri


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morley, Elliott


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gordon, Mildred
Mullin, Chris


Gould, Bryan
Murphy, Paul


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Brien, William


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pendry, Tom


Haynes, Frank
Pike, Peter L.


Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Prescott, John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoyle, Doug
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rogers, Allan


Illsley, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Clare


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Snape, Peter


Lewis, Terry
Spearing, Nigel


Litherland, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


Livingstone, Ken
Stott, Roger


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Strang, Gavin


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Vaz, Keith


Loyden, Eddie
Wall, Pat


McCartney, Ian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

 Macdonald, Calum A.
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McFall, John
Winnick, David


McGrady, Eddie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McNamara, Kevin



McTaggart, Bob
Tellers for the Noes:


McWilliam, John
Mr. Allen McKay and


Madden, Max
 Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

It being after Seven o'clockMR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [3 March], put the Question forthwith,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I beg to move
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It might be helpful if I make it clear that debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.

Mr. Stewart: The order is made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise the expenditure of some £473 million included in the 1988–89 spring supplementary estimates. That amount, when added to the £3,618 million previously approved by the House, brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to some £4,091 million for this financial year. The second purpose of the draft order is to authorise the vote on account of some £1,669 million for 1989–90. That amount is necessary to enable services to continue until the 1989–90 main estimates are approved later this year. Full details of all the provisions sought in the draft order can be found in the spring supplementary estimates volume and the "Statement of Sums Required on Account" leaflet, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office.
As the draft order covers the entire range of services provided by Northern Ireland departments, I shall say a few words about certain key features of the Northern Ireland economy which inevitably influence the pattern of public expenditure provision. I am glad to say that the Province's economy continues to show clear signs of improvement and revival accompanied by a welcome reduction in numbers out of work. By January of this year, total unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis had fallen by nearly 16,000 since the peak in October 1986, and by nearly 7,000 on the numbers a year ago. Our public expenditure plans for the coming year, with extra resources for training and investment, should contribute to a continuation of that trend.
Meanwhile, the numbers in employment are increasing. The number of employees in the manufacturing sector has risen by 2,000 in the year to last September. In the same period, the number of jobs in the service sector has increased by 3,000. Recent successes by the Industrial Development Board, which is due to receive additional funding in 1989–90, show that Northern Ireland is a highly attractive location for new investment. In the service sector, the commercial revival of Belfast and other centres continues.
As the estimates show, the Government will continue to pursue economic and public expenditure policies in Northern Ireland to strengthen the Province's economy. I want to ensure that the economic recovery is as broadly based as possible for the benefit of all areas and sections of the community.
I now turn to the specific estimates before the House. The Department of Agriculture's vote 1 provides for the Northern Ireland expenditure on United Kingdomwide

support schemes. Provision of £600,000 is sought to meet the costs in Northern Ireland of the measures introduced to assist the egg industry, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the House on 19 December. These short-term measures were introduced to restore stability to the industry following the sharp fall in demand for eggs as a result of the problems in Great Britain associated with salmonella enteritidis in eggs and egg products. Although no such infection was detected in any eggs produced in Northern Ireland, the industry is co-operating with the Department of Agriculture on further measures and final decisions in relation to Northern Ireland will be taken in the light of developments in Great Britain.
Following the reopening in Northern Ireland of the national element of the agriculture improvement scheme, the order provides for additional expenditure of £4 million, mainly on grants for effluent storage and disposal facilities. An extra £1·3 million is also provided this year for payments of compensatory allowances to farmers in less favoured areas.
The Department of Agriculture's vote 2 requires £0·5 million extra in the drainage programme to meet additional expenditure on the restoration of flood defences at Strabane following the severe flooding in October 1987.
The Department of Economic Development has supplementary estimates for all of its five votes. The most significant item in vote 1 is an extra £15·8 million to meet the current level of expenditure on industrial development grants and loans under selective financial assistance agreements. This reflects the continuing success of the Industrial Development Board in promoting employment in manufacturing industry and tradeable services. The major investments by Daewoo and Montupet will in themselves provide 1,600 new jobs. I should add that this increased expenditure is largely financed by an extra £14·6 million of receipts mainly from the sale of factories and land in line with the IDB's policy of privatisation.
The increasessought on the DED's votes 4 and 5 are all less than £3 million, but vote 2 contains by far and away the biggest single increase in these supplementary estimates. This is the provision of £390 million for the recapitalisation of Short Brothers plc, which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), announced on 27 February.
The House will recall my hon. Friend's previous statement on 21 July 1988, that the Government were ready to consider suitable proposals that might lead to the acquisition of Short Brothers by private sector interests. Subsequently, Kleinwort Benson were appointed as merchant banking advisers, and we have been moving towards our objective of privatisation.
The interest shown in Shorts by potential purchasers confirms our view that Shorts is a company with many fine products and is held in high regard by other companies in the aerospace industry. We remain convinced that Shorts' best interests will be served by an early return to the private sector with the disciplines and opportunities which are available there.
The House will be aware that an information memorandum was issued to companies interested in acquiring Shorts. Detailed discussions are taking place with prospective buyers. The House would not expect me to speculate on a date for disposal, but our intention is to achieve sale as early as possible.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Has the European Commission approved the loan?

Mr. Stewart: I will have a word to say about that in a moment.
Since the early 1980s, Shorts has been funded largely by commercial borrowings, and, because of the high development costs related to new products together with trading losses, a high level of borrowings has been built up. This in turn has placed a considerable interest burden on the company. The Government have always recognised the need to restructure Shorts' balance sheet before the company can be returned to the private sector and has been considering how and when this should best be done. We have reached the view that there would be merit in taking steps now to enable the company to extinguish the bulk of its loan indebtedness to commercial banks.
Clearly, the simplest way of achieving this would be to inject grant into the company now to enable it to repay its bank borrowings, but we have decided not to follow this course. The European Commission would not wish to sanction a definitive capital reconstruction until final details of the disposal are known. We therefore propose to replace the company's commercial debt by a convertible loan from the Government. This would be at national loans fund rates, and our intention is that it would replace all the company's commercial debt save for loans from the European investment bank which carry an interest rate well below that charged by the NLF. Our loan would be convertible, and our expectation is that it would not in fact be repaid, but be converted, either in whole or for the most part, into equity at the point of disposal of the company. This proposal would of course be subject to the agreement of the European Commission, and formal notification of our plan has already been made to it. We are hopeful that it can reach a positive decision before the end of the financial year.
The aim of replacing commercial debt with Government debt is, first, to reassure the market about our intentions on capital reconstruction; secondly, to simplify the company's portfolio of borrowings so that final recapitalisation can be effected at the appropriate point with minimum delay; and, thirdly, to secure a reduction in the interest burden currently borne by the company and consequently a corresponding reduction in the Government's liabilities. There may of course be other payments to conclude the sale, but such matters will arise from detailed discussion with prospective buyers.
I therefore seek the approval of the House at this stage to a payment of up to £390 million. The public expenditure consequences of this payment cannot be accommodated within the existing Northern Ireland public expenditure block and the necessary resources will be available from the reserve.
I am sure that the House will support the substantial provision proposed to replace existing commercial borrowing by Shorts. It is a positive indication of the Government's determination to give the company the best prospects for an early and successful return to the private sector.
In the Department of Economic Development's vote 3, when balancing items are taken into account, the net additional provision sought is £2·9 million. Within the overall amount, £4·1 million is provided for the expansion of the action for community employment programme, giving an average of 8,800 jobs for the long-term

unemployed during 1988–89. This figure includes the 500 additional jobs announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as part of the making Belfast work initiative.
The Department of the Environment's vote 1 covers roads, transport and ports, where a net additional provision of £10·9 million is being sought. This includes £5·9 million towards an extended programme of structural maintenance works on carriageways and footways, plus £3·1 million for new construction and improvement schemes.
In a recent statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport informed the House that the Government had made a. contribution of £250,000 to the East Midlands air crash disaster fund and that £100,000 of this donation would be met from the Northern Ireland block. Appropriate provision has therefore been made in this vote. I hope that hon. Members will welcorne this contribution to relieving the suffering caused by this tragic accident.
I now turn to the Department of Education, where net provision of £9.3 million is sought in vote 1. The main increase in this vote is an extra £5·2 million grant to education and library boards, of which £3·4 million is for recurrent expenditure on mandatory student awards, schools for mentally handicapped children and library book stocks. The boards will also receive a further £1·8 million for maintenance of school buildings. An extra £5 million will be provided for capital expenditure. Hon. Members will note that provision is made within this vote for curriculum working groups being established under the Government's education reform proposals.
An additional £4·3 million is sought for the Department of Education's vote 2. The increases are mainly for capital expenditure and will provide. for example, furniture and equipment for Magee campus in Londonderry, as the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), announced yesterday, and additional resources for physics at Queen's university. Belfast's grand opera house and the Downpatrick arts centre will also benefit. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also announced that there will be increased finances for the arts, museums and sport in the coming year.
For health and personal social services, a net additional provision of £46 million is being sought in vote 1. Of this total, some £29·5 million will be allocated to health and social services boards, mainly to meet the cost of the nurses' regrading and pay settlement and other review body pay settlements. The extra cash will help to maintain the high standard of health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. It will also enable further progress to be made in the transition from institutional to community care for those in long-stay accommodation.
The increase of over £10 million in the capital programme will ensure that building projects are carried forward as planned, that essential medical equipment is replaced, and that some of the most pressing maintenance jobs can be tackled. A further £10·7 million is also required for family practitioner services to meet higher estimates of demand and increased costs, particularly in pharmaceutical services.
In the social security programme, a total additional provision of £7·6 million is sought and £0·6 million of this is required in vote 3 in connection with the social security reforms. An additional £7 million is required in vote 4 to


meet increased demand on the social security budget for income support, supplementary benefits, attendance allowance and transitional payments.
In my opening remarks I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the main provisions of the order. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), hopes to reply to the debate and we will be most interested to hear the contributions from right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I thank the Minister for taking us so carefully and definitely through the order and I am sure that most of us are now far wiser about its detail and consequences. I certainly found his explanation enlightening. It makes a pleasant change to be able to start these proceedings with agreement.
On a more personal level, it is good to see the Minister restored to full health and I hope that, within the next few weeks or months, he will be able to run around Westminster as he used to.
This evening we have the opportunity for a general debate on the social and economic state of the Province, and I suspect that this debate will be less emotionally charged than the previous one. I shall repeat the point that I made when winding up the previous debate—the economic and social aspects of life in the North of Ireland are of great importance to ordinary people. To the many people who do come into contact with violence, they are of paramount importance. Matters such as whether one has a job, or a reasonable prospect of getting one, whether one has a house and whether it is in decent repair, mean a great deal to ordinary people. We must bear in mind that we are talking about policy issues that have an impact on the vast majority of decent men, women and children in the north of Ireland.
I think that there is complete agreement in the House that Northern Ireland is perhaps the most deprived region in the United Kingdom. It is also one of the most deprived countries in the European Economic Community—as shown by its objective one regional status under EC regulations. I think that there will be further agreement that the security problem diverts resources away from social and economic development, and handicaps the generation of new internal and external investment.
However, within these parameters and constraints, the Government have enjoyed some success in attracting inward investment. The Minister mentioned Montupet, which is to be welcomed and on which I have already congratulated him. The Government have also been successful in encouraging economic activity through local enterprise initiatives, which are also to be welcomed.
Having given credit where credit is due, it remains the Opposition's view, and one that I have previously expressed, that the Thatcherite approach to the economic and social life of this kingdom is totally inappropriate in Northern Ireland. It is based on the concept that the size of the public sector in Northern Ireland creates a dependency culture and stifles enterprise, initiative and risk-taking. The Government believe that the Province must adjust and that the public sector should take a lower

percentage of Northern Ireland's GDP. That policy is shortsighted and offers limited scope for the successful development of the Province's economy.
The narrow emphasis on law and order—important though that is—must be broadened and the Government must recognise that, when dealing with community conflict, they should also tackle other issues to promote a fair and equitable society for all citizens. The ban on public cash for Conway mill in the Lower Falls area of Belfast is to continue, despite the pressure—including that from local clergy and other community leaders—which has been applied. I have visited the mill and am aware of the sort of danger to which the Secretary of State alluded when he said that public funding would not be given to the mill, either directly through the Vote or through international funding. However, a great deal of useful work takes place at that mill and many local people gain experience and useful information. It is a crying shame that it is continually denied public funding of any kind.
This example highlights the problem that the Government face with their blanket refusal to give their reasons for denying funds to specific organisations. The project is a place to which people can go to receive education, training and experience. When the Government continually fail to provide funding for such projects, that reflects badly on them and creates the impression that they do not care for the section of the community which use such places. Will the Government look again at that institution?
I have an 18-inch pile of press releases from the Northern Ireland Office in which Ministers gleefully announce that they have received additional resources for their Departments from the Treasury. However, both the Ministers and the press releases fail to point out that those resources—although I agree that they are additional—are totally inadequate to redress the increased poverty in the North of Ireland.
During the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 debate last year, the Opposition argued that the Government's social security changes constituted a cruel, cost-cutting exercise which failed to recognise the enormous problems of poverty and deprivation in Northern Ireland. We received some vague assurances and heard some glib political comments during that debate, but, unfortunately, our fears have proved to be well founded. The Government will know that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in Northern Ireland recently carried out a survey among 30,000 of its clients. It found that eight out of 10 people on income support will be worse off when additional liabilities, such as the payment of rates, are taken into account.
More than half the families on family credit are now worse off, if changes in housing benefit and the loss of free school meals are taken into account. That is an illustration of a case in which the Government claim they have provided additional funds, but instead of the lot of people living in poverty being alleviated, large numbers of people have been left in worse poverty than before. It ill behoves the Government to claim that they are doing a great deal to remove poverty in the North of Ireland.
I should be grateful if the Minister would answer the following questions about the social fund. A few months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) asked the Government some questions about the amount of underspend from the fund and the number of applications to it which have been refused. After six


months, only 12 per cent. of the grants budget had been spent and only 33·5 per cent. of the loans budget had been spent. What are the recent percentages of expenditure from the grants and loans budgets? If we can be given those figures, and if, as we suspect, they still show a large degree of underspend, may we be told why?
Why are so many people who seek assistance refused it? Thirty-four per cent. of applicants for grants are refused, and 37 per cent. of applicants for loans are refused. One in three applicants for grants and loans are refused. How do those rates of refusal compare with rates in the rest of the United Kingdom? If, as we suspect, they are higher in the Province, why is that so? We fear that if people are refused grants or loans they will inevitably be thrown into the eager arms of the loan sharks and money lenders. As the Minister knows, per capita debt in Northern Ireland is already frighteningly high, and we should hate to feel that these measures made it worse. There is already a debt time bomb ticking away in Northern Ireland, and Government measures should not make the problem worse.
Ministers continually claim that Northern Ireland receives a higher allocation per head for health than equivalent regions in the United Kingdom, and I do not doubt their claim. But they fail to take into account the health of the citizens of Northern Ireland. The Eastern health board recently published a report on Belfast showing that the general standard of health there is worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and among the worst in western Europe. The profiles on immunisation targets, congenital handicaps, coronary heart disease and chronic arthritis are the worst in the United Kingdom. So it is not enough to claim that the allocation per head is higher in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the country, true though that may be. Far higher levels of expenditure are required to deal with the problems there.
One of the results of this comparative underfunding has been deteriorating services and growing waiting lists for in and out-patient care, particularly in the acute sector. The Minister knows that waiting lists for community care are growing, and that people receiving it have had their provision cut back throughout the Province, not just in any particular health board area. That augurs ill for the future, especially in the light of the Government's determination to press ahead willy-nilly with increased emphasis on community care.
The Government must treat the problem of health seriously and go back to the Treasury before Tuesday of next week to try to obtain even greater sums from the billions of pounds floating around there to deal with the problems as they exist, not as Ministers would like to think they exist.
We welcome the Government's encouragement of integrated education and applaud the decision recently announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), to give £3·3 million to Lagan college. However, Ministers will know that that decision has not been unanimously applauded in Northern Ireland. Every press comment that I have read so far has more than paid lip service to the principle of integrated education, but has then gone on to say that capital expenditure spent on it should not be made at the expense of capital expenditure programmes for other schools. The Government must take heed of that problem and convince people that the

£3·3 million is additional expenditure, not made at the expense of capital expenditure on other sectors of secondary education.
The Government must also accept that there is a backlog of capital expenditure requirements in Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister to go to the Secretary of State in the first instance, and then to the Chancellor before Tuesday, to seek additional funds with which to make a more determined effort to remove the outstanding capital expenditure needs of other schools in the North of Ireland. In general, Government plans for integrated education have our full support.
The Government must be a little concerned about the low morale that is apparent, especially among secondary school teachers. It is clearly related to inadequate funding, particularly of the new GCSE exam. Recently, the Irish National Teachers Organisation revealed that funding for the GCSE was clearly inadequate and sporadic, leading to problems with course planning and shortages of textbooks and equipment, all of which has put excessive pressure on teachers.
This pressure has contributed to the accelerated retirement rate due to ill health during the past year. I understand that it accelerated by 42 per cent. in the Province last year. In the light of that increase, will the Minister confirm the latest pupil-teacher ratio in the Province? He will recall that when a question on that subject was put to him last year, the figure was given at 18·5:1 compared with the United Kingdom figure of 17·4:1. It is common ground between us that any substantial increase above 18·5:1 would have adverse consequences for the Province's education system. M y own view—which I hope is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar—is that in view of the Province's particular requirement for imparting expertise, so that people may obtain jobs created from the investment that the Government seek to attract in Northern Ireland, a teacher-pupil ratio not equal to but better than that of the United Kingdom should be achieved.
On housing, the Government are proud of their success, and rightly so. I have previously paid tribute to the Government on that aspect. Nevertheless, they should not allow their success to breed complacency. Much remains to be done, and that will require additional resources. A recent report from Shelter Northern Ireland indicates the extent of the housing problem there. Forty-two thousand homes are unfit for occupation, 115,000 homes are in need of major repairs, and 28,000 homes lack at least one basiic amenity. The report also indicates that more than 22,000 applicants are on housing waiting lists, of whom more than 13,000 urgently need accommodation. Those problems will not be overcome unless expenditure is increased. There is currently doubt as to whether the Housing Executive's budget will increase or decrease in real terms. I hope that it will not decrease, given that 42,000 homes are unfit for habitation, 115,000 need major repairs, and 28,000 lack basic amenities. This is not the time to cut the housing budget but to increase it. Will the Minister confirm or deny that next year's Housing Executive allocations will be less in real terms than this year? If they are to be greater, will he give that figure instead?
Also of great concern, not only to people living in Belfast but throughout Northern Ireland, are the two companies currently facing the threat or prospect—whichever verb one likes to use—of privatisation.


Decisions that the Government will take in the next few days, weeks or months will impinge directly on the lives of 10,000 people and their families living in Belfast, and indirectly on the lives of thousands of others.
The two companies concerned are familiar names in this House. They are Harland and Wolff and Shorts. There is no need for me to rehearse the arguments about the importance of those two companies to the economies of Belfast and Northern Ireland. The decisions that are to be made about those companies—especially about Harland and Wolff—must be made quickly. In my more cynical moments—fortunately, cynicism is not one of my natural bents—I begin to believe that the Government want to see the closure of Harland and Wolff, which, over the past few years, seems to have suffered death by a thousand cuts. That shipyard, led by John Parker, with the support of the trade unions and work force, has made valiant efforts to compete internationally. I pay personal tribute to John Parker who, in the few months that I have known him, has striven with every ounce and fibre of his body to protect the shipyard and ensure its survival. I am convinced that he has full support for all his efforts.
It would be a tragedy—not just a personal tragedy for John Parker—if the time and effort of all those people who have striven so hard over the past few years to make the company more internationally competitive came to naught. The Government can help by making a quick decision. They have only two bids to choose between. One is the management-employee buy-out, and the other is Bulk Transport. The Government should quickly decide which is to be the successful new owner of Harland and Wolff. My view is that the Government should prefer the management-employee buy-out, but whichever decision they make, it should be made quickly. The Government must also give sufficient capital guarantees and restore the possibility of intervention funding without further delays.
Turning to Shorts, in a previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made it clear that we wish to see the company sold as a whole. He also suggested in a private notice question last week that that could best be achieved by the Government retaining a golden share in the newly privatised company. I again urge that course of action upon the Government.
The two bids for Shorts that are before the Government, from GEC-Fokker and from Bombardier, both present problems, particularly in respect of the JFX project. Before the Government choose between GEC-Fokker and Bombardier, they must seek cast-iron assurances about the future of the JFX project. My own view is that if the GEC-Fokker bid succeeds, the likelihood of the JFX project getting any further will be slim. I would be happier if the Bombardier bid succeeded, because even if the decision was made not to develop further JFX, Bombardier's own keen involvement in the development of new regional jets, and the success that the company has had with Canadair, should ensure that such aircraft will continue to be built in Belfast.
Shorts is a centre of technical and engineering excellence that must continue, particularly if Northern Ireland is to retain a place in the aerospace industry. The Government must ensure the provision of capital restructuring and other assistance to give Shorts a fair

chance of succeeding in the private sector. If the Government do anything less than that, they will betray not only the workers at Shorts but all the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I join the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) in congratulating the Minister on the presentation of the appropriation order. I sympathise with the Minister on his physical problems. I am glad to see him back in the House.
As usual, I object to the way in which these iniquitous draft orders are imposed upon the Province. Many people say that the method is corrupt. Many hon. Members have exposed this unacceptable system of undemocratic government, and to govern in this way at this time is completely wrong. Northern Ireland Members want to be treated in the same way as other hon. Members.
There is a sincerely held belief in Northern Ireland that our Ministers can exercise supreme powers without being answerable to us in any way. People believe that we have no means of redress or of pointing Ministers in the right direction. That may be so, but as responsible elected representatives who have to answer to our constituents, we must at all times endeavour to represent them to the best of our ability. Where necessary we must be ready to take issue with the Government on matters that concern our people. The order gives us some opportunity to do that. We know that we cannot change it, but at least we can put to Government our suggestions for improvements that would be to the benefit of the Province and its citizens. With that in mind, I should like to draw attention to vote 3 on page 4 for expenditure on housing services by the Department of the Environment. I am dissatisfied at the reduction in funding to the Housing Executive and the way in which the funds are distributed to the various sectors under the Housing Executive umbrella.
I am worried about the reduction in grant provision for repairs and renovations. The Minister must know that the poor condition of housing stock which is more than 25 years old has reached disastrous proportions. Consequently, grant applications are at an exceptionally high level. It is unacceptable for the Housing Executive to announce a £6·5 million cut in this year's budget and that repair grants are now considered cut in this year's budget and that repair grants are now considered only for declared housing action areas, for houses affected by statutory notices, or for applicants who are suffering financial hardship.
It is worrying that renovation grants are available only for housing action areas or for those who are disabled or suffering from financial hardship. The Minister knows that I have often spoken in the House about the criteria for grant aid. I am most concerned about people who purchased their houses in the 1950s when demand was high and standards were lamentably low. It is unfair that the owners of those houses are now denied the means to repair and renovate them. There are some Orlit type houses in private ownership and they did not qualify under the housing defects orders. The Minister should take a special interest in the grant side of the Housing Executive budget with a view to more realistic funding and to obtain better value for money. That is important when it is


remembered that in 1986 the allocation was £56·8 million. This year that has fallen to £30 million which is less than half the 1986 amount when one allows for inflation.
I draw the Minister's attention to correspondence that I have had with his office about the concept of defensible space and its importance to many tenants living in houses built by the Housing Executive in areas where crime and vandalism are rampant. The people in such houses, many of whom are elderly, are tortured by hooligans. Those elderly people require the privacy that is given by walls and fences.
In my constituency the Housing Executive has recognised that need and has provided small walls with railings and gates in such areas as New Lodge and Ardoyne. It has done that with great success, but there are areas in Shankill, Crumlin and Oldpark that have suffered as much from criminal vandalism and have not yet been provided with this necessary buffer zone in spite of promises made to me by the Housing Executive as far back as 1984. The executive said that the work would be undertaken as a matter of urgency. If the Housing Executive will not fund that work perhaps Belfast action teams could do it, possibly by way of community action. I hope that the Government will facilitate such an initiative because it would restore confidence to the people in these vulnerable areas.
I should like to deal with the new tenants agreement that has been proposed by the Housing Executive. My party is worried about some of its proposals because it feels that they are dictatorial and repressive. In part II, paragraph 1, the Housing Executive promises:
To keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building.
In practice that is far from the case. Promises are one thing but practical application is another. The delays in carrying out repairs and the quality of such repairs are often pathetic. The fact that the inspection rate is so low in relation to the number of repairs must be a factor in the encouragement of shoddy and dishonest practices. Part II, paragraph 2(c), says:
The Executive is not under any duty to rebuild or reinstate the dwelling in the case of destruction or damage".
There is a certain amount of ambiguity there and it deserves an explanation. Does the tenant have to live in a tent or in a damaged house until the Housing Executive decides what it will do? Is there an obligation to rehouse or is compensation available to tenants who find themselves in such circumstances? Tenants deserve to know. Paragraph 2 goes on
"(c) The Executive is not under any duty to rebuild or reinstate the dwelling in the case of destruction or damage by fire tempest flood or other inevitable damage.
(d) In determining the standard of repair or maintenance necessary for compliance with the Executive's obligations in that connection, regard is to be had to the age, character and prospective life of the dwelling at the time of the need for the relevant repair or maintenance.
(e) The Executive is not under any duty to carry out any work by virtue of its obligations to repair or maintain until a reasonable period has elapsed after the District Manager has been given written and specific notice (by or on behalf of the Tenant) of the need for such work.
(f) The Executive's duties to repair, maintain and decorate are subject to any additional limitations provided for in Schedule 4.

What happens in an emergency, or does the Housing Executive not allow for such things? What about electrical breakdowns or water problems that are not caused by any action by the tenant? The agreement needs to be more specific and the meaning should be clear so that people can understand the paragraphs.
The other part of the document that is causing great concern is part III, under the heading of "Improvements". It says
4. The Executive has the right to carry out any works in or in respect of or in connection with the dwelling (whether works of repair alteration improvement internal or external decoration, or otherwise) and the Executive shall not be responsible for the cost of any redecoration work necessitated by such works of repair, alteration, improvement or otherwise and further shall not be responsible for any claim by the Tenant for any inconvenience or disruption or for any physical damage to the dwelling or items therein arising from or consequential upon the carrying out of such works other than any such claim arising out of the negligence of the Executive or its employees.
That scandalous abrogation of responsibility must rate as the most diabolical and repressive example of dictatorship ever to be penned by the minions in the Housing Executive, obscured by this autocratic, secretive, monolithic structure. Such a statement must infringe civil and human rights, and, so far as responsibility is concerned, a body that could expect to impose such conditions would have no compunction about denying any claim arising out of its negligence or that of its employees.I shall not say any more about this subject, except that, no doubt, the Minister will wish to look very carefully at such repressive and, in my opinion, unlawful conditions.
Turning now to the Department of Health and Social Services—vote 1—I strongly oppose any proposal to diminish the night casualty facilities at the Mater hospital. The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance has presented to the Government an excellent case setting out in detail why this great hospital, which, since its inception, has endeared itself to the whole community of north Belfast, should not be interfered with at this time. The Minister will appreciate that the hospital is in a very deprived area. The Government have recognised that the special circumstances in such areas justify allowing for local conditions. I cite, as examples, Notting Hill, Bristol and Liverpool 8.
The Mater hospital has a catchment area encompassing the whole of north Belfast and parts of Newtownabbey.The rate of work done and the number of patients seen, in relation to the number of staff employed, must be among the highest in the United Kingdom. In times of emergency—and in north Belfast those are frequent—it is totally impractical to send seriously injured people to the City hospital or the Royal Victoria hospital. If there were delays arising from disruption, such people could die in transit. Furthermore, the night casualty departments in the City and Royal hospitals, particularly at weekends, are often fully occupied, necessitating unacceptable delays in treatment.
I ask the Minister to consider very carefully any proposal by the Eastern health and social services board to interfere with the exceptionally well run casualty department at the Mater. In future there will be discussions as to how the various hospitals should operate within the proposed new structure. That will be time enough to have an in-depth look at how the Mater hospital should be affected by these proposals.
Finally, I want to refer to the Department of the Environment—vote 4. As environment spokesman for the Ulster Unionist party, I want to draw the Minister's attention to the seemingly insurmountable problem of the litter that is being dumped all over the Province. I am sure that Ministers, as they go about their business, are as concerned as anyone else about the unsightly and unhealthy deposits alongside the roads. Irresponsible litter louts tip rubbish on almost every plot of vacant ground in the city. The existing legislation does not appear to be sufficient to deal with the problem, and local government byelaws are obviously ineffective. I should like to see the Minister using whatever authority is required to give councils the power to take the necessary action to stop these irresponsible practices, which are destroying our environment and contributing so much to deterioration and deprivation in the whole community.

Mr. James Kilfedder: This debate cannot do justice to the myriad problems that affect the Province of Northern Ireland, nor can it do justice to the large amount of money that this appropriation represents. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) has given some of the reasons for the people of Northern Ireland feeling that they are discriminated against in the manner of the presentation of this appropriation order. The time allowed for debate is limited, and it would be impossible to cover all the subjects if all Members wishing to take part were to speak. I intend, therefore, to be brief.
I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) in his thoughtful speech, particularly about the Belfast shipyard, which is so important to our economy. I join the hon. Member in urging the Government to come to a quick decision. I, too, believe that if the shipyard is to be privatised, the best course would be to sell it to the management and the employees. That would be the best way forward for Harland and Wolff.
As the hon. Member for Leicester, South said, this debate is taking place only a few days before the Chancellor unveils his Budget. I hope that some of the money provided will be made available to meet the problems that we in Northern Ireland have to face. The hon. Member pointed out that we have many problems. Indeed, Northern Ireland is rightly described as a deprived area.
In opening the debate, the Minister mentioned the fact that more money has been made available for the arts, museums and sport. This I welcome. Despite the campaign of terrorism, which has lasted for 20 years, despite the dark and difficult days that campaign has brought for the people of Northern Ireland, there is a need to foster the arts. Of course, that is additional to the need for jobs, adequate housing, modern hospitals and good schools.
As time is limited, I propose to deal with just four points, the first of which concerns schools. There is a desperate need in my constituency—in Bangor—for more schools, particularly for girls, who, at present, are discriminated against. I urge the Department of Education to ensure that a decision is made, without further delay, on the provision of a new school on the site of the former Forsythe nursery. That site would be ideal for the

provision of larger premises for Glenlola collegiate school and Bangor girls' high school. Those schools could then expand, incorporating the existing Glenlola buildings, which are right beside those of Bangor girls' high. It is intolerable that pupils in Bangor have to receive their education in temporary classrooms. I understand that those two schools have about 50 temporary classrooms. That is acceptable only on a short-term basis, and it is high time that prefabs throughout Bangor were replaced.
I am all for integrated education. Over the years I have fought for it, and I am glad that the Minister who is now responsible for education is pushing it ahead. Again I join the hon. Member for Leicester, South in urging the Government to make sure that the amount of money made available to Lagan college is additional to the amount provided for the Department of Education. We must have good schools. The children of Northern Ireland deserve the best possible education because they are the wealth of the Province.
Much attention has recently been given to the environment by the British media and the Government. That attention has been concentrated on beaches along the coastline of Great Britain. Many people in Northern Ireland have been protesting about pollution in Belfast lough. That pollution defiles the beaches of my constituency of North Down and makes some of them a health hazard to bathers and other users of the beach, particularly young children.
Millions of tonnes of untreated sewage go into the Irish sea every year, and that is quite apart from industrial waste and the plutonium that is discharged from Sellafield. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) joins me in protesting about emissions from Sellafield. As the Conservative party has now become the green party—if we are to believe it—the people of Northern Ireland have a right to expect an end to the dumping of sewage and industrial waste into the Irish sea.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, in the EEC survey of beaches in Northern Ireland, Belfast lough came out all right? A beach in Newcastle and one in North Antrim had problems.

Mr. Kilfedder: That may be all right for the people of Belfast and Belfast lough, but I am talking about what happens when sewage sludge is dumped in Belfast lough. It creeps around, and waves bring it back on to beaches at Orlock and Ballyholme. All sorts of things are thrown up on beaches. I have seen the results. It may be all right for the hon. Member for Belfast, South, but if he made use of beaches in North Down he certainly would not wish Belfast sludge to be dumped on them.
Each year, approximately 326,000 tonnes of sewage sludge is dumped in Belfast lough. That is no small quantity. It is not like somebody removing it from his backyard. It is nearly twice the amount that is dumped in Dublin bay. Many of my colleagues have criticised Dublin. Even though Dubliners may protest about sewage being dumped in their backyard, twice as much is dumped in Belfast lough. Together with the 1,700,000 tonnes of sewage sludge that is dumped in Liverpool bay and Bristol channel, the Irish sea has been polluted to an unacceptable degree. The Irish sea is virtually an inland sea as, I am told, there are insufficiently strong tidal currents rapidly to dilute and disperse sludge.
I commend members of the Orlock residents' association for their vigorous lobbying over the past few years in their campaign to clean up beaches in their area. They wish to see a sewage treatment plant installed for the district, instead of an extension to the sewage outfall at Briggs Rock. They fear that, as before, sewage will be swept back on to the beaches.
I commend also an organisation called Help The Aged. It has as its organiser a Mr. Will Glendenning, formerly a conscientious Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps he may not have been favoured by some of my colleagues, but he was a hard-working Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Help The Aged has collated statistics which prove that pensioners in Northern Ireland have suffered severely as a result of the Government's public expenditure cuts. The old-age pension should be substantially increased to meet the needs of the elderly and to keep pensions in line with inflation. Because of the shortage of time, I will not refer to the statistics in detail, but I ask the Minister to look at them. I believe that that organisation has submitted them to the Department. Perhaps the Minister will think with compassion about the elderly in our midst.
I single out one item affecting the elderly. One way in which Ulster pensioners could be helped is to provide them with free public transport. Is it not obnoxious that pensioners who have given so much to the community should have to plead for a little comfort and dignity in the fullness of their years? My maiden speech in the House, which was in October 1964, was on behalf of pensioners. More should be done for pensioners. I hope that the last speech that I make in this House will be on that subject, whenever that occasion may occur. [Interruption.] I do not like hon. Members welcoming that day.
The need for more jobs is paramount in Northern Ireland. A job provides not only money but dignity for the wage earner and his family. There can be nothing more soul-destroying than being in a dole queue month after month, year after year. I feel for all people who are unemployed.
I repeat the suggestion which I made in this Chamber on two occasions in the past two years. With representatives of the SDLP and any other constitutional party, I am prepared to go to the United States or anywhere else if the Government would organise such a delegation to get jobs for employment black spots in Northern Ireland. I have mentioned Strabane. I should like more jobs in my own constituency. I am prepared to work with my colleagues, regardless of their political party, to make sure that the people in Northern Ireland who want work get it.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: As I listened to the presentation of the estimates, one matter that struck me was the depletion in real terms of the Housing Executive budget. The Housing Executive is one of the success stories in Northern Ireland in its design and redevelopment of housing and the clearance of slums. It is a pity that the Government have not continued to update and promote housing in Northern Ireland to the extent that they did in the past. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive's present budget is not even capable of meeting the rather mean target that it was forced to set for itself in previous budget allocations. That is notwithstanding the fact that

compulsory rent increases of 10·25 per cent. have been imposed on the public housing population who are suffering from the multiple deprivation articulated by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) regarding social security and the lack of take-up. I always assumed that rent increases would go hand in hand with, and not be greater than, inflation. Are we to understand that the Government's target for inflation next year is 10·25 per cent.? That is the rate of imposition in the public sector, and, as announced yesterday, it is 10·5 per cent. in the private sector.
The fact that the Housing Executive has not received an adequate budget gives rise to a considerable clawback of its proposed, and already reduced, building programme. The Housing Executive will receive £40·2 million less in 1989–90, compared with 1988–89. In real terms, over the three-year strategy period, the Governments net contribution to the executive is £110 million less than the modest strategy period bid.
What does this mean in terms of bricks and mortar? It means that only 1,400 houses can be expected over the next three years; that is the equivalent of saying that 780 dwellings which might have been improved under the previous standard of financing cannot now be improved and that 2,250 improvement grants, or 7,750 repair grants, cannot now be given. That is for a housing stock acknowledged to be among the poorest in western Europe and certainly in the United Kingdom. It comes on top of the fact that two new pieces of legislation have imposed severe additional burdens on the Housing Executive. One is the welcome legislation on homelessness and the other is the order on multiple occupancy which, it is expected, will affect between 2,500 and 3,000 dwellings in Northern Ireland.
When we hear the horror statistics of those multiple occupancies we realise just how bad the problem is: 40 per cent. of them are below the minimum required standard; 55 per cent. are in the category of inadequate; 80 per cent. have no alternative escape routes. That is another massive problem that the Housing Executive must face on a reduced budget.
Some time ago I urged the responsible Minister—who is not on the Front Bench at the moment—to stabilise and assist the Housing Executive in a planned and progressive way to achieve reasonable targets and to give it a five-year programme, not the stop-start, start-stop programme that we have had in the past two years but a confirmed five-year programme which would enable it to put contracts out in a proper way and establish a reasonable housebuilding programme.
My constituency of South Down is primarily an agricultural one. It is for the most part a less advantaged area in almost its entirety. We hear much talk about the need for farm diversification but the purse does not appear to be following the words and there is little that I can see by way of a comprehensive and adequate programme for farm diversification, something that is badly needed in view of the restricted income of the Northern Ireland farmer in general and the South Down farmer in particular, faced as he is with the withdrawal of the beef subsidy, the poor pig market and the problem of the milk levies.
It is a great pity that farm diversification schemes were not properly taken into account when the farm conservation grant scheme was introduced, particularly


with regard to mushrooms which have provided a useful, and could provide a much more useful, diversified source of income for the small hill farmer in South Down.
A problem which is becoming rather alarming but is at this stage still in its infancy is the increased incidence of bovine tuberculosis. When the Minister is distributing his wealth, will he consider providing 100 per cent. compensation for cattle found to be so infected? It would encourage an immediate eradication of the beast or beasts in question; and perhaps the farm conservation grant scheme could be extended to buildings, crushes, pens, and so on, thus providing for proper isolation and treatment.
I am also concerned at the possible closure of the veterinary college in Glasgow, which has always served Northern Ireland. Our veterinary students nearly all go to Glasgow and it would be a tragedy if those interested in following such a career were prevented from doing so at that particular institution.
Another agricultural matter which is often not mentioned is the increasing amount of their reduced income which farmers, particularly in the south of South Down, for some historical reason, have to spend on keeping up farm roads which should have been taken into the public domain many years ago. I ask the Minister responsible to take account of the fact that so many roads which lead to farms and to clusters of farms and which would appear to be public roads are, in fact, private roads. Keeping them up to standard drains much needed resources from the small farmer.
On health matters, has the Minister noticed the increased incidence of Crohn's disease, particularly in a village near my own town, Drumaness, where there have been 12 cases in the recent past? This intestinal disease is very often related to water supply. Will the Minister take a serious look at this in the immediate future?
Perhaps the Minister has read the Belfast Telegraph of yesterday evening and found that Ulster has its own ozone hole and that the incidence of skin cancers, according to Professor Lowry, who was the Minister's own appointee into a previous cancer-related investigation, is 10 times higher than the United Kingdom average? Would he do some further research into that particular project? I do not know whether we have our own special ozone hole or not, but, if there is one and this is the result of it, let us do something about it.
On the general question of hospitals and hospital provision, two factors have worked together to provide a situation which will reduce the quality of the services to which patients are entitled. One is the ongoing struggle of nurses to receive a proper award under the new scheme. Whatever has happened in the past is water under the bridge, but there is great dissatisfaction among the nursing fraternity as to the way the awards have been allocated. If that requires additional money for the health and welfare of the service which also means the health and welfare of the patient, it must be attended to in such a way that there is job satisfaction and tranquility within the wards so as to produce a high standard of service.
Perhaps I may make a parochial plea for the hospital at Downpatrick, which has awaited the outcome of a promise made by a certain Mr. Morgan, the then Minister of

Health in the old Stormont regime, over a quarter of a century ago. Will the Minister consider that as a new venture?
The environment causes problems that affect us all, and I have often spoken about pollution, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) earlier. Tonight I want to comment on the absence of an adequate environmental infrastructure in South Down. We have always been outside the new pale that has been created around Belfast lough and in that sense we are still a deprived area. We had the Matthew report in the early 1960s with its key town concept. Downpatrick was one of the key towns, and it is the only key town centre which has never been developed. All the rest were substantially developed by way of infrastructure, for example, good roads and other environmental provision, which in turn enabled and encouraged industrial development to take place.
This is significant when one considers the new harbour, which is capable of much greater use, at Warrenpoint. The reason why it is insufficiently used is the totally inadequate road network which prevents it being readily accessible to its hinterland for export purposes.
Reference to that lack of infrastructure leads me on to say that two things which concern most people are a good house and the prospect of a job. It is that inadequate infrastructure which has been the greatest drawback to industrial development in South Down. It is a situation which can be remedied only by the immediate application of some of our present-day resources, such as were not applied in times of plenty, to that particular area. I cannot accept the argument that only a limited amount of money is available and so other areas must have priority. In the times of plenty the other areas received priority, but we did not. I ask for that situation to be reconsidered.
Please assist in bringing jobs to the people and not people to the jobs. Bringing people to the jobs is the most unsociable activity in which a Government can be engaged. It leads to massive urban conurbations with social, environmental parking, and transport problems. Why not bring jobs to the people and let people stay in the environments to which they are accustomed and in which they are happy?
I hope that the Minister is conscious of the plea I am making to him about the Star Plan development. The new fibre-optic miracle will bring us into the 20th century. Unless Northern Ireland has an adequate fibre-optic link to Europe, the entire north—not just my part of it—will be completely marginalised. Talking in the context of countries, industry will be drawn to the core. We shall be completely marginalised in the north Atlantic unless we have the infrastructure and, especially, the fibre-optic linkage communications. Without that we will be left behind when it comes to the new technology. Even today, industry can be transported on block from as far away as north America into little villages if they have the fibre-optic link. A prime example is the New York Life Assurance company which has transmitted its entire operation to the little village of Castle Island in county Kerry. It was able to create employment in an area which had nothing before, because of the fibre-optic link. I make that plea for my constituency and the whole of Northern Ireland in this respect.
Tourism is the other great job creator in Northern Ireland and of which my constituency should be a prime example. As the Minister will probably agree, Newcastle


has proven statistically to be the biggest tourist centre in Northern Ireland, yet it is only by local effort that that has happened. Where are the packages prepared for marketing by central Government? I envy the packages of Fermanagh and North Antrim. Can we not, for instance, have a package that would sell tourism in South Down, both in Europe and North America? After all, we are St. Patrick's country. His whole heritage is there in brick and mortar and that can be packaged, as well as our natural resources.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: St. Patrick died in Downpatrick. He lived and worked in Armagh.

Mr. McGrady: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is trying to claim some credit for St. Patrick. Those were pseudo St. Patricks. The only genuine one was the one who lived in the Hill of Down, the Dun Phadriig—that is the Gaelic for Downpatrick.
As the hon. Member for North Down said, it is startling that Newcastle—the biggest tourist attraction in the north—is one area criticised in the EEC report for not having adequate sewerage. Could that scheme be speeded up as much as possible?
Education is an area that will be one of the most difficult to deal with financially in the coming year. I shall say one thing to the Minister to hand on to his right hon. Friend responsible for that Department. There is great unease about the inequality of the distribution of finances between the voluntary and the state sectors. There is, too, some unease about the inequality, or the prioritisation, of funds towards integrated schools, while established schools have been waiting many years for capital funds to erect new buildings. The Minister mentioned the art centre in Downpatrick for which I thank him.
Museums and arts are receiving £1·5 million but, if I remember rightly, the Department of Education in Northern Ireland still has no museums policy. It has a policy only for national museums. I ask the Minister to open the purse strings a wee bit wider and to give some—if only token—assistance and encouragement to the many local museums that are doing such a great job.
The primary thrust of my argument is to ask the Minister responsible to ensure an allocation of resources that will increase the environmental infrastructure of those deprived areas, of which South Down is one, and positively to encourage new industries to settle. The Minister boasted of the new inward investment into Northern Ireland. I was glad to hear of that, but that does not make any difference to my constituents, because they have not seen it. It appears that an area which has had high unemployment for decades is left with that high unemployment, whereas other areas which have had virtually full employment, but where there are now fewer jobs, receive special treatment. Why is a package not available for South Down as it is for Carrickfergus and Derry? I ask the Minister to consider the fair distribution of effort and resources in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Because of the great importance of the security situation in Northern Ireland and because of the vital nature of our constitutional position, occasions when we can deal with the bread and butter issues are all too few in the parliamentary process. However, I share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the

Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) about the manner in which the proceedings go forward. I would have had a great preference for having these matters dealt with in Northern Ireland in a local assembly, where local people could be taking local decisions, where they could use their own ingenuity and decide their own priorities for expenditure. Nonetheless, at least we have the opportunity to speak. It is the last trust reposed in us and, although we cannot affect the ultimate decision, at least we can give our minds to the Government so that they can, if they should grace us with the privilege, take on board what we have to say.
I shall deal with the funds in the Irish fashion, by starting at the back and moving towards the front. First, I shall deal in a more Irish fashion with a matter under the education budget but deal with it in respect of the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. I am referring to the Lagan college, which has been mentioned by several hon. Gentlemen. I believe that the Government should encourage integrated education. They should not be doing it by the back door, as is the present Government policy. I do not believe that they should be doing it at the expense of other schools. Therefore, I refrain from making too much comment about the £3·3 million being offered to Lagan college. I raise the issue of Lagan college not in relation to the Government's expenditure, but in relation to the behaviour of Lagan college's board of governors towards planning matters.
Lagan college is in the borough of Castlereagh. It is currently situated on two sites—one on Church road and the other at Lisnabreeny. Lagan college has had a deplorable record for erecting buildings without planning permission and without even applying for building control approval. One should have thought that people who have responsibility for young children, that an organisation that is headed by a resident magistrate and a body that should, above all, be showing responsibility would have behaved in a proper manner in relation to planning law.
Even when the problem has been drawn to the college's attention by the planning authorities and by the local council, it has refused to bring its buildings into line, to make the necessary applications for planning and to obey the planning departments directives in that respect. The college should not behave in such a way and I had hoped that the Department of the Environment would have exerted itself more to ensure proper enforcement action was taken so that Lagan college toed the line. I had hoped that the governors who, in another capacity, would be quick to draw to the attention of others their responsibilities in the community would have shown the same responsibility themselves rather than flout the law and trample it underfoot.
It is important to consider the general question of ex-post facto planning applications. In Northern Ireland it seems to be prevalent for the planning authority to be pushed to give permission for dwellings or other structures if the person has successfully had them built before the planning department finds out. It is felt that possession is nine tenths of the law and that, if a person can get his building up, permission will follow.
During the lifetime of the Northern Ireland Assembly—the 1982 to 1986 variety—the environment committee, of which I was chairman, put three planning proposals to the Department of the Environment. It happily accepted


two, regarding neighbour notification and objector appeals, on a test basis. During the past few weeks, I was glad to note that those proposals have been renewed.
The committee also put forward a proposal about ex-post facto applications. If the DOE is made aware of buildings that have been erected before an application has been submitted, it is essential that there should be a significant cost for subsequently submitting an application for such buildings. At the time of the Assembly, we suggested that the application should be ten times the normal application fee, which would discourage those who embarked upon such building.
Such proposals should not, however, remove from the DOE the responsibility to treat any application as if the building was not there in the first place and to adjudge the application in that light. I believe, however, that the Department gets bullied into giving permission for buildings that it would not otherwise give permission for simply because someone has had the audacity and the cheek to proceed with the building before submitting an application.
It is also important to consider the long-awaited Belfast urban area plan. I fear that serious problems will arise regarding building in the city of Belfast because the planning department has been forced to kick for touch because many of the major developments in and around the city are waiting for the report from the planning commissioners as a result of the hearings that they held about that plan. The delay is not the responsibility nor the fault of the commissioners. Most of us who have some involvement with planning matters in Belfast know that, in some instances, those self-same commissioners have been unable to hand over their other duties to other commissioners, because, I suspect, of the failure to appoint sufficient commissioners to assist with the volume of work.
We recognise that the commissioners have a heavy schedule, but I had thought that they would be willing to provide the Department with the various categories covered by the Belfast urban area plan. For instance, they could have informed the Department at different times about commercial use, recreational and housing use and transportation plans. Such information could have been passed to the Department piecemeal but that would not have required the Department to make its overall statement on a piecemeal basis.
If such information had been available to the Department, it would have been possible for it to digest the various aspects of the Belfast urban area plan report as presented by the commissioners. The Department would therefore need to take much less time when considering its final statement on the report. As it is, a two-month delay is contemplated before the Department can prepare its statement.
I am concerned about the Belfast urban area plan for several reasons. First, I must confess my vested interest as a Castlereagh councillor. We have plans for major recreational provision, but they require comment in the Belfast urban area plan report before we can successfully proceed. Some of my constituents are eager to establish whether certain road proposals, which will bring blight upon certain parts of my constituency, have been turned down by the planning commissioners—even now I hope that that is the case.
My constituents are concerned at the flyover at the Castlereagh roundabout and about much of the road widening scheme on the Albertbridge road and the further provisions in the Sydenham area. Decisions on those proposals are eagerly awaited as they are affecting house prices in the Belfast area. People are unable to get the proper price for their houses because of the blight that is hanging over them.
On top of that, many of my constituents are concerned about various housing proposals, and they want to know how the Department will finally decide on them. Other constituents are eager for such proposals to proceed, so that the houses they need can be built to allow them to live in the Belfast urban area rather than having to move outside that area.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give some idea of the present timetable and when we can expect the Department's decision. Is there any possibility of an internal arrangement between the Department and the commissioners that could speed up the process?
It is perhaps unexpected for a Member representing a Belfast constituency to consider agricultural matters, but if those Members representing rural constituencies will forgive me, I am more concerned about the consumers of agricultural produce. I am anxious about the effects of the salmonella egg scare. I welcome what the Minister said about the Northern Ireland egg being given a clean bill of health. That is not exactly news to many of us, as we were aware of its healthy condition.
Unfortunately, the poultry sellers in my constituency and people whose shops rely entirely on the sale of chickens, eggs and poultry products have found that at least 70 per cent. of their business has gone as a result of the egg scare, in spite of the fact that it does not affect eggs in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister please encourage his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to spend some considerable time, effort and, if necessary, finance on advertising to the Northern Ireland consumer the fact that there is not the danger that there is on this side of the water in purchasing poultry products in Northern Ireland? That would come as a considerable relief to my constituents who rely for their employment on the poultry industry. No doubt it would do no small good to those involved in agriculture as well.
As expected, I now come to the issue of the Department of Economic Development, and I could not have avoided it. As the Minister gallops around my constituency putting "for sale" signs on the main employers, he will recognise that I and my constituents are, to put it colloquially, on tenterhooks about what will happen over the next few weeks. The outcome of the present negotiations with the bidders for Harland and Wolff and Shorts is of no small moment to the people of east Belfast and the city in general. Like the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), I shall not rehearse the importance of those two industries to the Northern Ireland economy. That has been done by all the political parties in Northern Ireland, with perhaps one exception. It has been done by Church groups in Northern Ireland, by many of the community organisations in the Province and by hon. Members of all parties in the House. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry produced a report that stressed the importance of those industries to the Province.
I know that the Minister will be aware of the significance of those two firms to Northern Ireland as a


whole. There are features in common between Harland and Wolff and Shorts, but there are many differences between the two privatisation issues. I do not intend to argue the ideological issues. Unfortunately, it is not a question of privatisation or public ownership. The question that the Government have placed before us is of privatisation or closure—or at least bringing in people to sell off many of the assets. Such a choice would convert one fairly quickly to the cause of privatisation, even if one was not an ardent fan beforehand. Although I am not convinced that privatisation is in the best interests of either of those companies, and certainly not in the best interests of both at this time, we must do our best, even with the doubts we may have, to ensure that the Government's plans succeed.
There are two bidders for Harland and Wolff and I have come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and the hon. Member for Leicester, South. I have studied the two propositions, as far as they are known publicly, and as far as I can understand them, having spoken to the participants in both. Although the Government will undoubtedly be careful about the financial package that they finally agree, that is not my prime concern. Just as it was for the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, my prime concern is to ensure that the priority is towards achieving a viable and lasting solution to the sale of those industries, rather than achieving the best financial deal. If that meant an extra couple of million pounds or even an extra £10 million or £20 million, it would be money well spent.
I have learnt recently from the Northern Ireland Office that it is nearing the final stages of the negotiations on Harland and Wolff. I was somewhat perplexed to learn that there is some haggling over finance, which is not helpful to the smooth and orderly handover of the company to private ownership. If the Minister goes for the lowest cost, he could put the new owners in a position where they will not have sufficient strength and capital reserves to allow customer confidence and companies from whom they purchase will be dilatory in giving the credit that is needed during the first few years.
It is important that the yard is transferred on a firm and viable financial basis. I urge the Minister to consider as a priority the Secretary of State's terminology to the Select Committee when he said that he was looking for a safe and secure future for Harland and Wolff. Although I recognise that it would be irresponsible of him not to consider such matters, finance should not be his overriding consideration.
I concur with the comments that have been made about the management at Harland and Wolff, and especially about John Parker. In view of the interest that has been expressed by Fred Olsen and his group, one could ask why they were not prepared to go directly to the Government to express an interest in purchasing the company. Anybody who knows the nuances of the situation would know that the Olsen group is putting in significantly more capital than it is getting in shares. Therefore, it could have come to terms with the Government easily if it had gone to them directly. The answer to that question shows neither respect nor distrust of the Government; it is rather a sign of confidence in the chairman, the management and the men of Harland and Wolff.
When Fred Olsen learned that the management and men had sufficient confidence in the future of Harland and Wolff that they were prepared to put their own money into

the company, that gave him the enthusiasm to back those people in that task. The confidence that has been expressed by someone of the standing of Fred Olsen in the shipbuilding and ship-owning world shows the high level of expertise at Harland and Wolff at present. That is just one of the reasons why I favour the management-employee buy-out.
Although this is not often mentioned—perhaps it should be mentioned much more frequently in Government circles and even by the Minister himself—Harland and Wolff has a responsible trade union group, which has acted with the utmost responsibility throughout the discussions on privatisation. It would have been easy for those who have great ideological problems with the issue of privatisation to be unto-operative throughout that period. However, as pragmatic trade unionists, those people have recognised the essentials for a viable future for shipbuilding in Belfast and have made them their priorities as they sought that future.
At the recent meeting between the Northern Ireland party leaders and the Prime Minister, those present were encouraged by the Prime Minister's grasp of the position at Harland and Wolff, by her enthusiasm for transferring Harland and Wolff to the private sector and by her belief that it would work in the private sector. The Prime Minister suggested that an essential ingredient would be a good working relationship between men and management and between men, management and the new owner, whoever that may be.
In the last few days, I have been encouraged to receive a copy of a communication from the Harland and Wolff trade unions to the Prime Minister, stating not only that they had reached agreements in the past with the management that were far in advance of anything agreed in the United Kingdom on flexibility or working practices, but that they were still flexible and co-operative in that respect and that they would be willing and delighted to work in co-operation with any new owner.
The trade unions should be encouraged—rather than, as is often the case with Tory Ministers, discouraged—because they have acted in a responsible way over the privatisation issue at Harland and Wolff.
The unions at Shorts have been much criticised publicly in recent days because of their concern over a pay issue and because they have said publicly that there could be industrial action over it. Industrial relations is not a matter simply of unions having disagreements; they have disagreements with managements. Just as the problem affects unions and managements, its resolution is a matter for both. A responsible attitude on the part of both at Shorts can and must avert industrial action at this time. Such action would be an act of folly. Unions and management must reach agreement in the coming few weeks, when the industry will be the showcase to those with an interest in purchasing.
In this case we have bids from Bombardier and from GEC-Fokker. Like the hon. Member for Leicester, South, I fear that the JFX project may become the victim of the privatisation issue. Not only does Bombardier have a rival project, but I understand that Fokker also has a similar development in progress. I was encouraged when speaking recently to an industrial editor from Amsterdam to learn that the local talk in his country is that, if Fokker is successful, it will not continue with the JFX project, but will bring its alternative project to Belfast and pursue it there.
Will the Minister say whether the JFX project will be killed off by privatisation? If so, does he expect that an alternative project will be available for the aircraft building side of Shorts? Is he aware that it is essential that all three divisions of Shorts should remain intact in Belfast?

Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we want more than the building of the aircraft to take place? The question of design is vital to this issue. Unless we have a secure design base, the future will look grim.

Mr. Robinson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the design capability was lost—if it was supplied from elsewhere in Europe—the research and development side would be in jeopardy and ultimately the manufacture and production side would be in danger.
In the documentation on Shorts provided by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the Minister responded to a number of questions put by the trade unions and said that 27 firms had expressed an interest in Shorts. It has been announced that two firms have been asked to submit a final bid. How were the numbers whittled down? Is there any prospect of other firms expressing an interest and, if they do, is there still sufficient time for them to act in the matter?
The Minister will appreciate that my constituents are greatly concerned about the two industries of which I have spoken, remembering that about 10,000 people in east Belfast and the surrounding areas are affected. While I recognise that the sensitive nature of the negotiations limits the amount of information that the Minister can give, it would be helpful to my constituents if he would say what progress has been made.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the plea of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about Harland and Wolff and Shorts. The Minister referred to the buoyancy of the economy. If those firms went down, not only people in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland, but people in many areas in Scotland, England and Wales would suffer because of the knock-on effect. Both firms play an important part in the economy of Great Britian as well as of Northern Ireland. When the Minister referred to the buoyancy of the economy, was he contradicting the views of PA Management Consultants which has pointed out that, while there has been an improvement, the prospect of loss of jobs in manufacturing and even service industries is a threat to the future?
Under vote 2 for the Department of Education I welcome the expenditure on arts and museums but I regret that there is no mention of anything for the Ulster orchestra; is that to come out of the funds for the arts? We recognise the important part which the orchestra has played in Northern Ireland affairs over the years, but now it is in financial difficulties.
I question the provision for pensions under vote 3 of the Department of Education. No doubt the point affects not just Northern Ireland, but I raise it because women teachers in Northern Ireland have been in touch with me. Apparently widowers' pensions have been introduced with effect from 6 April 1988. Married women will have the opportunity of purchasing service prior to April 1988. I

understand from the information I have that the Government insist that women buy back the years in question—1972 to 1988—if they are to be counted towards widowers' pensions. Male teachers can already count those years for widows' pensions. I am told that since 1972 women have paid the same contribution as men. Why, therefore, should those years not be credited to women, free of further charge?
On health, matters affecting Belfast also affect the Province as a whole because the services are regional. I regret that under vote 1 of the Department of Health and Social Services there is nothing for the capital development required at the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children. The Minister responsible will know that I have been pressing the Department on the matter. Discussion has been going on since 1964—for 25 years. In 1983 the then Minister announced a capital project of £4·4 million, about half of which has been spent. I understand from my contacts with the Department and with the Eastern health and social services board that discussions are still going on about what might be done, yet the announcement in 1983 involved an immediate injection of capital to deal with pressing requirements, pending the development of a new hospital. When will the current discussions end and the capital injection be made? In addition to the fears of the past, there are now fears for the future with the possibility that the Royal Victoria hospital, perhaps in conjunction with the City hospital, may become a hospital voluntary trust and may have difficulty in acquiring the capital required for work in the children's sector which supplies regional cardiac and paediatric services for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said that far more money per capita is spent on health provision in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. That is because the population is smaller and scattered over the Province and that automatically adds to capital cost. I suggest that the injection of capital from public sources to different parts of the country does not go to deprived areas, but far more is being spent per capita in the south-east. We would love that capital injection for job promotion, research and defence contracts. It would be a tremendous help in lifting the Province out of poverty.
The Royal Victoria hospital has been trying to develop capital for its ophthalmic services, which are a basic regional speciality. Those who work in the ophthalmic unit at the Royal Victoria hospital have saved large sums of money over the years and have provided an excellent service to the region. But that service is now being impeded and the damage to the standard of training in that specialty may be irreparable if the hospital does not have the theatre service and other provisions it requires. I understand that although there has been a clear indictment of the cardiac surgery provisions, which is also a regional specialty, the hospital is hoping for some provision in August this year. Will the Minister give us an assurance or guarantee that that will happen?
I appreciate that we are dealing with the departmental budget and not the Northern Ireland Office budget which covers security, but I must raise the problem of security at the Royal Victoria hospital. The Minister may say that there is no security problem at the hospital and that that is ill-founded rumour. I understand that more than a year ago equipment was provided to assist in the security at the hospital, but there has been some dispute with the unions about the deployment of manpower and the equipment is


not in use. Since it is not a normal security problem that affects any large institution in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, should it be funded from the hospital budget—the DHSS vote 1—or should specific security problems at the Royal Victoria hospital be dealt with by the security budget? The board considers that it would he far too much for the hospital to provide, given the finance required to care for patients.
Only a week ago a person visiting the hospital discovered that his car was missing from the car park. Eventually, he received a telephone call to an ex-directory number from someone claiming to represent an insurance company. saying that the car was in Andersontown. The police do not know who telephoned. They do not know anything about it, but that is where the car was found. However, there are supposed to be security officials there and it is important that we examine whether they have the authority to stop and search vehicles entering and leaving the hospital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) dealt with the problems for hospitals and the matter of accident and emergency provision which will affect the whole city. Is it not the case that there is no emergency disaster plan in the Northern board area? Is the board relying ultimately on the Eastern board to provide that plan?
The Western board deals with the provision of mental health services in County Fermanagh. There must be provision for patients in the community before they are decanted from the hospitals. The present procedure for obtaining approval and funding for housing association schemes is extremely time consuming and that makes it difficult to plan the services in a concerted way. Would it be possible for the entire mechanism for approval of proposals to be speeded up?
I understand that the problem with regard to the provision of bridging funds in Fermanagh relates to the very low level of existing provision in terms of mental health services. The county is virtually destitute in terms of that provision and that is the result of the previous board's low-funded base line. Those of us who understood what was happening under the resource allocation working party will recall that the Western board carried through a strict budgetary requirement and every year it lost more money from the budget. As a result, the board is in difficulties. I plead that the board should receive an adequate share of the bridging funds being made available by the Department of Health and Social Services to enable it to provide the appropriate infrastructure in the community before transferring people from the hospitals.
People leaving hospital also face financial problems. It would appear that the main problem is that, because the majority of ex-patients are receiving invalidity benefit of a certain level, they are not eligible for income support and are not therefore eligible for a community care grant. In those circumstances, the board has to consider providing the funds for the initial essential furnishing and bedding requirements of those clients.
It is understood that there may be a resettlement allowance which will be payable weekly to long-term patients returning to the community. The object of that, however, may be to help patients pay off loans for furnishing. It is the considered opinion of the professional social workers dealing with those clients that that is wrong. They are totally opposed to the idea of their clients being put out of mental hospitals into the community and

starting their lives in debt. They do not believe that that is the answer to the problem of funding their clients' initial requirements. It might be better if the resettlement allowances could be paid as a lump sum to the clients. Another alternative might be for the resettlement allowance to be paid to the board on behalf of the client to offset payments which the board has to make for furnishing.
Is the Minister aware of the pressures now developing with the Government's move to the provision of private nursing and residential accommodation? The costs are rising, ceilings are being set and as a result residents in those homes are being pressed to obtain extra provision. They depend on charities to provide extra funding. Is the Minister also aware that, much more deplorably, patients' private pocket money, the £8 allowance which they should use for their own purposes, is being taken by the owners of those nursing homes to top up the residential costs? It is deplorable that the Government should have a policy of putting people into private and residential homes and then cut the money to support them.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I hope that I shall be forgiven for intruding in a debate that seems to be exclusively for hon. Members from Northern Ireland, but that is an important part of the United Kingdom. I represent an English constituency and, as chairman of the Conservative parliamentary aviation committee, having recently visited Short Brothers plc, I feel that I can make some contribution to this important debate.
I was most interested to hear what was said by a number of hon. Members today about the future of this very important company, Short Brothers plc, which is the largest manufacturing employer in Northern Ireland and one of the most important aerospace companies in the world. I was pleased that hon. Members gave credit to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and to the report that it produced following the Government's statement that the company was to be privatised.
The report highlighted the problem of the company's size. Following the mergers, aerospace companies today are of an enormous size and capability. Two examples in Europe are Aerospatiale and British Aerospace, both of which have turnovers in excess of £3,000 million per annum. Short Brothers plc is at the bottom of the European league table with Casa of Spain, both having turnovers which hardly reach £200 million a year.
That is not to say that, within its three divisions, Short Brothers does not produce work of extremely high quality. In fact, the essence of Short Brothers is the quality of its products. In particular, the SD3 series is a winning one with types flown all over the world. Short Brothers also hope to launch the FJX, which is another aircraft of great potential. It faces competition but British Airways is already committed to buying 20, which is a good sign and gives the aircraft the stamp of approval which it needs,. Hon. Members raised the matter of launch aid for the FJX. project. Although the project will cost £500 million, Short Brothers' share of that is only £120 million. Therefore, since launch aid amounts to only 50 per cent. of that figure, only £50 million to £60 million of taxpayers' money will be used. That puts the amount into perspective.
Shorts Brothers plc faces not only a debt problem but a productivity problem. When the Select Committee visited Queens Island, Short Brothers' management went out of its way to stress the importance of additional capital investment and quoted as examples figures of companies such as Northrop, which has a fixed asset to employee ratio of almost £19,000, and of Boeing, which has a ratio of fixed assets to employees of £11,000. Short Brothers comes at the bottom of the scale, with a fixed asset to employee ratio of £3,300. That could be for one of two reasons—either because the company has not put the money which it has received from the Government into capital investment but has been using it to pay off its revenue debts or because the company's productivity is not high due to overmanning and restrictive practices within the work force.
It is significant that, although the company's turnover has not increased much over the years, during the past 14 years, the work force has risen from 5,800 to 7,600. Other aerospace companies have reduced the size of their work force as their productivity has risen with the introduction of much more modern methods of production. When we toured the plant we were struck by the fact that some of the machine tools and equipment being used by highly skilled engineering employees should have been in a museum.
The company must tackle productivity. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Select Committee he stressed that he was going to seek three assurances from companies that might bid to take over Shorts. One was that the company's manufacturing base should stay in Northern Ireland; another was that the company's headquarters and research and development facilities, which must be retained, ought to stay in Northern Ireland. The third was that there should be some assurances about the level of future employment—there is the rub. No Government can guarantee to go on employing people in the quantities that Shorts does. I hope that its order book will expand; it stands at £1,000 million now, which is good, and I should like it to be bigger.
If the order book expands, the labour force may be able to stay the same size. However, if the company is to have the capital injection that it needs to improve productivity, there must be some rationalisation of the work force, which must be told honestly that that will happen.
Rationalisation has already occurred in other acts of privatisation, of which British Airways was a good example. The Government restructured the balance sheet and the work force eventually shrank by a third. The company was then successfully privatised, and Shorts must learn that lesson. The company has already proved that it can do this, because the Shorlac company, which is building the highly successful Tucano, has already increased productivity by working a cell system, cutting out demarcation and reducing sectarianism in the work force. In Shorlac, not only is the work force much younger—about 30 on average—but there is a higher percentage of Roman Catholics in that part of the work force than in any other.
This is my message to the company management and workers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about manning levels and capital investment in Short Brothers.
I now want to mention a wholly different industry—the licensed trade—for which I know the Minister is responsible, and about which I have an interest to declare. The pubs of Northern Ireland are a great asset to good community relations. They are non-sectarian. Hon. Members have already referred to the importance of tourism. Grants from my hon. Friend's Department are available to build hotel rooms there, but not to enable publicans to add rooms to their pubs, which are far nicer places to stay in. I know that my hon. Friend is reviewing that problem as part of his general review of tourism. Has he come to a decision on giving such grant aid to assist public houses to provide accommodation?

Mr. Harry Barnes: I often seem to be called near the end in Northern Ireland debates. I once had to make a three-minute speech on the subject, and this time will be much the same.
I want to mention one specific point and then provide a trailer of what I might be able to discuss some other time. The Minister mentioned expenditure on flood damage in Strabane. On 5 November 1987 I raised on the Adjournment the subject of an underground fire in my constituency. The Bellwin scheme came into that. Money had been spent on gale damage in the south of England, so I mentioned the flood damage in Strabane and asked whether the Bellwin scheme would apply, which allows, after a penny rate has been spent in the counties, or a 0·15p rate spent in the districts, 75 per cent. grant aid for the rest of the expenditure involved.
Has such an arrangement been allowed for the flood damage in Strabane, or has some other provision been made? That affects not only my constituents but the parts of Scotland in which there has been gale damage and which have not yet received the provision that the south of England did.
I turn to the trailer for my remarks on a future occasion. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) commented that there are few opportunities to discuss the politics of Northern Ireland—the kind of matters that are covered by the appropriation, concerning the conditions of ordinary working-class people. This debate has allowed the House to do so, and that is why I have been pleased to participate in it. Had I the time available, I would have developed some of the themes that have been introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who often comments on matters relating to police involvement, might instead be able to provide some democratic answers to the problems of Northern Ireland.
I would have addressed myself also to some of the democratic and social aspects. I would have spoken of democracy in the sense of making a claim for devolved Government, but having a bill of rights, and of Socialism in terms of collectivist expenditure, public investment and public ownership as a means of meeting the problems of the Province. Where the greatest areas of deprivation and the greatest problems are to be found, Socialist solutions begin to be appropriate.
It would be useful if the Government began experimenting in Northern Ireland, applying not the policies used for the rest of the United Kingdom but others. Startling solutions might come from that. Northern Ireland could take the lead, because it has a


Protestant and Catholic working class that suffers from high levels of unemployment, low pay, National Health Service problems, housing problems, and other exacerbated difficulties of the kind found in the rest of the United Kingdom—and to which Socialist answers of the kind I wanted to talk about might be entirely appropriate.
As one enters the Chamber, one sees the statues of two Prime Ministers—Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. They were the leaders of what A.J.P. Taylor described as war Socialism. During the war, Socialism was used to build military defence, to handle social problems, and to unite the nation. When a statue of the present Prime Minister is erected, it will be interesting if she adopted a new policy for Northern Ireland. She may then be remembered for her Socialist achievements in Northern Ireland while helping to destroy the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: It will be difficult to say in four minutes all that I intended to say. It is difficult for an hon. Member such as myself from the North of Ireland, who has been in the Chamber since 3 o'clock, to make the points that he wants to make. Like the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), I shall simply put down a marker and a trailer.
One thought that struck me forcibly during the debate was that, rightly, considerable time has been spent on the problems of Shorts. However, approximately five times the number of people employed by that company are employed in the agriculture industry in the North of Ireland. Since entering the House, I have never had an opportunity of addressing the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food across the Floor of the House. I address my first request to the Prime Minister and to the Whips Office—that our biggest single industry be recognised by the appointment of a Minister to deal with the North of Ireland's agriculture as the important industry that it is. To me, there seems to be a cheapening and devaluing of our most important single industry. The North of Ireland has two natural resources. One is grass and the other is people, yet agriculture seems to be excluded from the body politic and from the thoughts of the House.
My second request is for a look at the development of bovine tuberculosis in the North of Ireland, especially in the border regions. I make no political point whatever about this because the matter is purely agricultural. The problem is developing because, in border areas, there are many movements of security personnel, fences are cut and, for various obvious safety reasons, gates are not used. I should like to make three suggestions and I must do it in shorthand. I suggest the setting up in the border regions of a full-time veterinary centre that will be able to act immediately. When there are fatalities, damage to stock as a result of low-flying helicopters or abortions in cattle or sheep, inspections can be carried out immediately so that claims can be processed.
Two months ago I had an interesting meeting to which the Secretary of State for Defence saw fit to send representatives to discuss these problems. Believe it or not, the Department of Agriculture in the North of Ireland din not see fit to send a representative to see me and the farmers and to hear about the problems.
In addition to the veterinary inspection centre, I should like to see set up a veterinary inspection team which would be available to make an assessment immediately and not 24 hours or a week after something happens. That would enable a report to be made and people would not be at a financial loss.
In relation to bovine TB, I should like to see the setting up of a Government agriculture insurance scheme that will give 100 per cent. compensation for TB reactors. At present, if a farmer declares a reactor, he is offered 75 per cent. compensation. That is very damaging to the industry and will cause long-term damage. If farmers were offered 100 per cent. compensation, it might enable us to get rid of the disease as well as the beast that is infected. At present it is being recycled.
The whole herd of 43 cattle belonging to one of my constituents was shut down because of bovine tuberculosis. He gets 75 per cent. of the market price of the cattle and that invariably involves a loss because his profit would have come long after the period when he held the cattle. He also loses the headage payments. He potentially loses his milk quota and must then rebuild his herd on 75 per cent. compensation. He cannot get income support and inevitably he will go out of business. That problem is occurring time and again throughout the North of Ireland. Agriculture is our main industry and employs four to five times as many people as the other industries that we have rightly been debating. The problems of agriculture are going by the board.
The Minister who is responsible for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland might well take the view that I sit up at night thinking up unique and quaint circumstances and instances for him to deal with. However, there is one problem that can be dealt with only at ministerial level. In the area of South Armagh surrounded by the Camlough mountains all primary legislation about drainage was handed over to the mill owners in the village of Bessbrook. Departments were absolved from any responsibility. Those mill owners have gone out of business, and the anomaly as we approach 1992 is that no Government Department is responsible for arterial drainage in that area. The result is that the Department of the Environment is spending about £12,000 per year on remedial road works deriving from the fact that the Department of Agriculture is not responsible for drainage in that area. It is unique; it is quaint; it could happen only to the present Minister—and he will appreciate the import of that remark, as I have referred certain other types of problems to him. To his credit, he has dealt with them, but this is one that must be grappled with quickly.
I am very concerned about my final point, although do not have time to expand on my concern. I am delighted that I was present for the presentation of the ten-minute Bill dealing with problems in relation to residential and nursing homes. There is increasing reason for concern about the way in which the entrepreneurial bent is being used in the care of old people in residential homes. I do not have time to take the matter any further, but it is one of immediate concern to all of us. The people that we must treasure most are those who cannot help themselves. We owe it to those who, like all of us, are getting older to make sure that any homes that are set up are run in such a way as to ensure the maximum protection for their residents.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I have sat through many debates without getting an opportunity to speak, so I am sure we all feel a great sense of satisfaction that everyone who sat through this one had that opportunity—albeit, at the end, briefly. My only regret—and it is a very serious and sincere one—is that I will not be able to reply to all the points that were made, some of them very serious and very important. I counted more than 30 points that require some response from the Dispatch Box, but I simply will not be able to reply to all of them, and for that I apologise to the House.
In 1988–89 the public expenditure total for Northern Ireland is £5·2 billion, excluding the special addition of £390 million for Shorts. This very substantial allocation enables us to mount spending programmes which reflect Northern Ireland's higher needs, in terms of unemployment, health, housing and other issues. In response to those needs, spending per capita in Northern Ireland is substantially higher—about 40 per cent.—than the United Kingdom average. This is, of course, the considered result of Government policy, which, rightly, provides more resources to Northern Ireland and to other relatively disadvantaged areas than to the more prosperous regions of the United Kingdom. This clearly gives the lie to those in Northern Ireland who misguidedly talk about economic withdrawal. The facts speak for themselves the opposite is the case, and the Government are providing, and will continue to provide, the resources necessary to assist the Province to strengthen its economy through self-sustaining growth.
The House will forgive me if I pick up one point of substance for which I have special responsibility—the job-promotion duties of the Industrial Development Board. In 1987–88 the IDB achieved its highest-ever level of promotions, with 5,300 new jobs. The board set itself an even more challenging target of 5,500 job promotions for 1988–89, and I am hopeful, indeed confident, that this target will be achieved, or even exceeded. The IDB has had a high level of success recently, particularly in winning prestigious international projects—Daewoo from South Korea, Montupet from France, Science Typographers from the United States, and Huco from Germany. These successes underline the IDB's ability and determination to pursue and win major new investment.
I should add that the IDB is tasked to promote industrial development throughout Northern Ireland, and I can assure the House that the board goes to great lengths to ensure that prospective investors are made aware of what all parts of the Province have to offer. The IDB is currently assisting companies across the whole of Northern Ireland. These include: in Magherafelt, County Londonderry, Peter England—100 jobs; in Dungannon, County Tyrone, Powerscreen Manufacturing—45 jobs; in Craigavon, County Armagh, Interfacing Flow Systems—87 jobs; in Lisnaskea, County Fermanagh, Adria—142 jobs; and in County Down, at Killyleagh, Atlantic Tanners Ltd.—121 new jobs.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is prominent in putting forward the case that the Industrial Development Board is not fair in promoting jobs throughout Northern Ireland. In all sincerity, I say to him that, to my certain knowledge, he is wrong. I have written to the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

Mr. McGrady: rose—

Mr. Viggers: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. I have a total of nine minutes to deal with 30 points.
Montupet—the French company—gave most careful thought to the possibility of establishing its tool room in Downpatrick. I have discussed that issue with the chairman of the company. The IDB has been successful in winning jobs for the whole of Northern Ireland.
I give one figure, which has not been published recently. In 1987–88 the Industrial Development Board was successful in winning about 5 per cent. of all jobs won into the United Kingdom by way of inward investment, bearing in mind that the population of Northern Ireland represents about 2·5 per cent. of that of the United Kingdom. In the current year, we have achieved a remarkable 11·6 per cent. of inward investment jobs into the United Kingdom. That is a proud record.
I will seek to deal with some of the large number of points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) raised several important points concerning social security benefits. Last year's reforms were aimed at better targeting expenditure towards areas of greatest need, and benefit levels are on a parity basis with the rest of the United Kingdom. On family credit, the hon. Gentleman should know that the rates of benefit are more generous than under previous arrangements, but the Department of Health and Social Services is concerned about the level of take-up and is taking steps to improve it.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that expenditure on community care was being cut across the Province. There has certainly been an attempt to target expenditure where it is most needed so that people can remain in the community, preferably in their own homes, with the necessary support, rather than prematurely going into long-stay accommodation or blocking beds in acute hospitals. The policy of improving throughput in acute hospitals is intended also to release resources which can be redeployed to community services. I am sure that hon. Members would support such efforts.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asked about the latest pupil-teacher ratio. The most up-to-date overall pupil-teacher ratio for Northern Ireland is 18 : 3·1, which is marginally below the figure that was quoted by the hon. Gentleman, although very near to it.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) asked about the evening closure of the Mater hospital accident and emergency department. A recent complementary study of the Royal group of hospitals, the Belfast City hospital and the Mater hospital resulted in several recommendations, one of which was that the Mater accident and emergency department should close in the evenings, the time of closure to be decided locally.
So many hon. Members raised questions concerning Shorts and Harland and Wolff that it would be appropriate for me to devote the 180 remaining seconds of my speech to that subject.

Mr. Mallon: Why is the Minister making no reference to the largest industry in Northern Ireland—agriculture?

Mr. Viggers: As the hon. Gentleman took nine minutes to speak, having undertaken to take five, I might have had


more time to reply to his questions. [Interruption.] I would not have raised that ungracious point with the hon. Gentleman if he had not chosen to criticise me.
In the case of Harland and Wolff, the House will be aware that the Government are anxious to achieve an early and successful privatisation of the company. That approach has been endorsed by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. We have been working to find a privatisation structure which is right for the company and which will obtain the approval of the European Commission. We continue to study in detail the proposals put to us. Although there is no certain outcome to the discussions, there are encouraging signs of positive progress. The attitude of the management and the work force will he critical in that process. I welcome the approach and the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in this matter. He quoted the words and the attitude of the Prime Minister when she made that. point. It is in everyone's interest that the company attains the higher levels of performance required in today's extremely competitive shipbuilding market. This is vital if we are to achieve a successful privatisation and a more secure future for the company in the longer term.
Turning to Shorts, as has already been indicated, our intention is to restructure Shorts' balance sheet. I announced 10 days ago the initial restructuring, involving £390 million of convertible stock. I can tell the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the list of approximately 30 companies which had expressed an interest in Shorts was reduced to a dozen to whom we sent the information memorandum and, based on the responses to the memorandum, we have now, with the advice of Kleinwort Benson, our professional advisers, identified two company interests, which may be joined by a third, with whom we are holding detailed discussions.
We believe that to be the best basis and way ahead for the company, and we are moving anxiously to seek privatisation on that basis.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question on the motion, pursuant to Order [3 March].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Commercial Vehicles

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out to the House that in respect of this document, 4311/89, on the derogation of weights of heavy commercial vehicles, the Select Committee on European Legislation received from the Minister a memorandum. Having considered it at a meeting some weeks ago, the Committee requested further information from the Minister which he sent to us in a memorandum dated 6 March. This the Committee received today at its meeting and it made a further report to the House, dated today, our 14th report, which is now available in the Vote Office.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that no earlier notice was given of this, but because of the timescale, it was not possible to do so. Hon. Members, therefore, who took their papers from the Vote Office prior to 6 pm today may not have the full set of documents.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of saying this to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The whole House is obliged to the hon. Member for what he has said.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4311/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 6th March 1989 on the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles; notes the development of the circumstances which justified the derogations accorded to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland from certain provisions of Directive 85/3; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that a premature end date to the derogations is not imposed on the United Kingdom.
I turn at once to what the hon. Member has just said in his point of order in which he rightly drew the attention of the House to the report of his Committee, which I have had an opportunity to read and which the whole House should read. I hope that it will become clear in the course of my remarks that all the points that he makes and all these matters the House will, I am sure, wish to reconsider on a future occasion as the situation unfolds.
Perhaps I ought to apologise to the House for the fact that this debate has been arranged at short notice, but I think that most of the House, including hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, will wish to have had this debate before the Transport Council meets next week. I wish to be in the position when I go to it of being able to give the views of the House of Commons.

Mr. John Prescott: We are right behind the Secretary of State.

Mr. Channon: That rather worries me. I only hope that there is not a knife in the hon. Gentleman's hand if he is standing right behind me. But that is a most unworthy suspicion.
The point that I want to make seriously to the House is that this matter is urgent at the moment and will continue to be an important subject to which the House will want to turn its attention. Tonight we shall examine the proposals in document No. 4311 before they are discussed in Brussels. The document is a report on the suitability of the bridge infrastructure in the United Kingdom for use by


five and six-axled lorries weighing 40 tonnes with a drive axle loading of 11·5 tonnes, as is general throughout the European Community except in Ireland.
The House will be aware that in 1984 we obtained derogations from those limits for five and six-axled vehicles because certain parts of the road network in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland were not strong enough, and it was recognised in a Council directive that the requirement for substantial improvements of the relevant portions of our road network, especially bridges, would take some time to complete.
The next meeting of the Transport Council in Brussels takes place on Budget day—Champion Hurdle day, perhaps I should call it—and the draft directive which accompanies the report in document No. 4311/89 is not formally on the agenda of that meeting. But it is relevant for there is a proposal on that agenda which concerns two, three and four-axled vehicles. That proposal was the subject of debate in the House on 16 June 1988, when the Government sought the House's endorsement for the objective of keeping to current axle spacings and limiting the axle weight to 10·5 tonnes to safeguard our bridges. Retaining the limit on axle loading, as distinct from the proposed small increases in gross vehicle weight below the 40 tonne level—which is also part of the proposal—has remained the Government's main objective in what have been difficult and lengthly negotiations. I must warn the House that that directive is subject to majority voting since the Single European Act has come into effect.
I shall argue strongly in Brussels that the derogation on axle loading throughout the range of two, three and four-axled vehicles should be the same derogation as that of five and six-axled vehicles. It may be that other member states, which already have the heavier weights, will argue that any new derogation should be time limited—perhaps at 1996 as, indeed, the Commission's report suggests for the five and six-axled vehicles. However, it would be wrong for the new derogation on the smaller vehicles to be prematurely time-limited.
On our existing derogation that applies to five and six-axled vehicles, the directive in 1985 provided that it would be the subject of a Commission report on Britain's infrastructure, which is what is relevant tonight.
The Commission's report and the accompanying draft directive say that our derogation should end at the end of 1996. At one stage it had the ridiculous idea of ending our derogation in 1992. Therefore, even 1996 is an improvement. I do not agree, however, that that is good enough. For the sake of completeness, I should make clear that the draft directive with the report would also allow in one special circumstance for vehicles carrying the 40 ft., International Standardisation Organisation containers to be loaded at 44 tonnes, where that is part of a combined transport operation involving rail carriage and only end distribution by road. That is an exception and one that is not an issue in the normal limit of 40 tonnes and our derogations to 38 tonnes.
In February 1987, the Commission drew three conclusions. First, it said that design standards for bridges in the United Kingdom were similar to those in other member states; secondly, that older United Kingdom bridges were equivalent to bridges in other EC member states which did carry 40-tonne vehicles; and, thirdly, as

only a small proportion of older United Kingdom bridges had been assessed, a strategic plan of assessment and possible strengthening should be drawn up to enable the Commission to make a proposal.
In November of that year my Department published the bridge census and sample survey report that looked at bridges on local roads. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic announced on 24 November 1987 a 15-year programme for the rehabilitation of bridges on trunk roads. That programme includes general bridge maintenance as well as strengthening for the requirements of modern heavy lorries. The first 10 years or so of that programme will include the assessment and strengthening of the older bridges—notably the pre-1922 bridges—to make them capable of carrying up to 38 tonnes gross laden weight, and, incidentally, 40 tonnes should that prove necessary.
The important point that the House and the Commission should understand—because I do not believe the latter does—is that 15 per cent. of bridges in the United Kingdom are pre-1922, compared with, perhaps, only some 3 per cent. in Germany.

Mr. Prescott: Why is that?

Mr. Channon: Because the bridges are older, it means that they need more work done on them. They were not built to the standards that we require today.

Mr. Prescott: It was really the RAF.

Mr. Channon: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might say that. I nearly said it myself, but I shall need the support of the German delegation next week. I hope, therefore, that Hansard will attribute the remark to the hon. Gentleman rather than to me.

Mr. Peter Snape: It will be reported as an interruption.

Mr. Channon: Yes, an interruption.
The latter part of our bridge programme will concentrate on the more modern bridges, which are already designed to carry the heavier weights, but which will still need major capital maintenance. Later this month I am expecting a further report from bridge consultants on the state of the concrete bridges in the country. I have no reason to assume that that report will be optimistic.
What the various sample surveys show is that, in Great Britain, there are some 11,400 bridges on trunk roads and of those 2,600 need detailed technical assessment to see whether they can cope with heavier vehicle weights. On a sampling technique we estimate that about 1,200 will need to be strengthened. The Commission says that 230 will need strengthening, so there is a considerable difference of opinion. On the basis of the figures—they are only estimates—our trunk road bridge strengthening programme is planned for completion by 1998.
The sample survey of local bridges, including those owned by statutory undertakers and other bodies, produced the estimate that of some 50,000 local bridges, about 11,250 are expected to be below standard. Local authorities have been making their own plans for tackling those, and a few may have already embarked on work programmes. But it is not likely that the necessary strengthening work will be more than partially completed by the end of 1996.
The costs are considerable. For trunk roads they will amount to about £70 million, including about £9 million in the current year. We shall have to make a final estimate when the assessment is completed. For local roads the figure is enormous—some £600 million. An extra £27 million has been included in the public expenditure provision for 1989–90 to take account of the known position. I should make it clear to the House that these are not extra costs for the 40 tonnes-11·5 tonne-axled lorries. The vast bulk of the expenditure is required in any event to make our bridges suitable for the modern heavier weights that they already carry.
The Commission report notes that the higher weights proposed may lead to faster deterioration of our roads and bridges. It cites data from earlier reports on the effects of increasing the maximum permitted weight from 32·5 tonnes to 38 tonnes. It notes that the Armitage report concluded that 38tonne vehicles with five axles were less damaging than 32·5 tonne-four-axled vehicles. At the time of the Armitage report in 1980 it was generally accepted that heavier vehicles with more axles were generally less damaging to the road infrastructure. The Armitage recommendations were, of course, based on the premise that the drive axle weight of vehicles should be a maximum of 10·5 tonnes.
I agree with the Commission that the United Kingdom's bridges will not be suitable to carry the heavier-weight vehicles with the heavier drive-axle weights until there has been a major programme of bridge assessment and strengthening. Where I disagree—I believe that the House will share my disagreement—is about the scale of the problem. There are some 1,200 bridges on the non-motorway trunk roads that need strengthening, but the Commission says that there are 230 such bridges. On local roads, we estimate that there are about 11,250 bridges below standard, but the Commission estimates that there are about 4,000. The reason why there is such a difference of opinion between us is that the Commission has excluded bridges that have a capacity of 7·5 tonnes as it does not believe that those bridges will carry heavy loads. That is not true. Under the code the category includes all bridges that fall short of the next highest category of 16·5 tonnes. It is unrealistic, therefore, to imagine that the smaller bridges in this country will not be required to carry heavier loads if that was the requirement throughout the country.

Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend will notice that in paragraph 2(1) of the Commission's report the comparison that is made between the United Kingdom and other member states is confined to four other member states only. Seven member states are missing from its calculations. I have the greatest sympathy with the views that have been expressed by my right hon. Friend and I have grave reservations about the views of the Commission. Why is it that it has chosen only four other member states with which to make a comparison when there are seven others with which comparison could be made?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend raises an extremely valid point. I shall seek to convince the Commission that the report that I am sure it prepared in good faith is, nevertheless, misleading about the problem that the United Kingdom faces. I shall be careful in choosing my words, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the

fact that the report is inadequate in that respect as indeed, for the reasons that I have given, it is inadequate in a number of other respects.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the view of the Secretary of State that the Commission's view seems to be wholly inadequate. However, will he confirm that the views of the interfering busybodies from the Commission could be endorsed following the passage of the Single European Act if a majority of states take the view that the Commission's report is right rather than the view of the Government of this member state?

Mr. Channon: The situation varies depending on whether one is considering two, three and four-axle vehicles or five and six-axle vehicles. On two, three and four-axle vehicles, we have no derogation and any directive put forward on them will be subject to majority voting under the Single European Act. For five and six-axle vehicles, we do not accept that derogation should end in 1996, as is proposed, because we do not think that our bridge infrastructure will be suitable and it would be unduly burdensome to meet that date. We would never have been willing to agree the derogation in the first place without the Council's commitment on seeking agreement to end it unanimously in relation to five and six-axle vehicles. I wanted to try to explain to the House that the two issues are linked and that, therefore, it is very important that hon. Members and people outside the House should understand the difficulty that we face and that we may have to face as early as next week.
The Commission has also made the suggestion of a partial network of major routes for heavier lorries. With a significant proportion of bridges weight-limited, it would be difficult to suggest a comprehensive network. As we all know, there are many journeys that begin and end off major roads and enforcement would be a difficult problem We have begun a major programme of strengthening work so that the older bridges in the trunk road network will be able to carry a full range of modern-day goods vehicles. Local authorities will have to press ahead with similar plans for their roads.
It can be argued—and is argued—that there are substantial potential economic benefits from using heavier vehicles, as the explanatory memorandum describes. Those benefits have been estimated at about £76 million a year. The House will be interested to note that a more recent survey of business intentions carried out by the Freight Transport Association estimates that the potential savings to industry could be as high as £200 million a year. If that is so, benefits could be passed on to consumers in lower product costs and there would be other less quantifiable benefits to the public. Vehicles able to carry their full design weight need to make fewer journeys.
As the House realises, although I am not sure that everyone outside does, I must stress that the new heavier lorries are no bigger than the existing lorries. You, Mr. Speaker, or any member of the public would not be able to distinguish a 40-tonne lorry from an existing 38-tonne lorry. The only difference is the greater payload. That means that fewer of them would be needed on the roads, so it is argued that there would be an environmental benefit too. That argument would carry more force if those lorries were fitted with air suspension, which can not only reduce wear and tear on roads, but reduce noise and increase safety.
This is not simply a question of economics. The United Kingdom road infrastructure simply will not be able to carry the heavier vehicles by the date that the Commission proposes. I hope, therefore, that when I go to the Council next week, I shall have the support of the whole House of Commons. I draw the House's attention to the motion. It asks the House to take note of the various documents and then says:
and supports the Government's intention to ensure that a premature end date to the derogations is not imposed on the United Kingdom.
That is what I am asking the House to agree tonight. I hope that it will be possible to agree that without a Division. I would like to be able to tell the Council that this was the unanimous view of the House of Commons.

Mr. Snape: If it becomes necessary, will the right hon. Gentleman use his powers to veto the proposals at the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Channon: I do not have the power to veto the proposals on the two, three and four-axle vehicles. [Interruption.] Well, I shall go through it again. The two, three and four-axle vehicles will be discussed next week. I do not have the power to veto those provisions but I hope that I have the power of persuasion and, fortified by the support of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I should imagine that I shall be irresistible. Failing that, we shall see.
On the question of the five and six-axle vehicles, in answer to the hon. Member for Keighley—

Mr. Cryer: For Bradford, South.

Mr. Channon: Yes, I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—I meant the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Times have changed and things were better in those days. The hon. Gentleman was less heavy in those days.
I have already explained to the House that the unanimity rule applies in relation to the five and six-axle vehicles, so that will not be an issue at the Council meeting next week. As I have already said, we expect that the Council will treat that as a matter in which unanimity is provided and I have also said that the House of Commons will be consulted, so there is no question of us giving way on that point at present—unless we can have a date that is acceptable bearing in mind that our bridges will have to be strengthened for the lorries to use them. That is not an issue between us at the moment and it is not something that the Commission has suggested. The proposed ending of the derogation is most unsatisfactory and I am asking the House to agree on that point—

Mr. Prescott: rose—

Mr. Channon: Yes, I shall give way, yet again.

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. This is an important point and we appreciate that he is in the process of negotiation on two matters. However, is he prepared to say at the Council meeting that he is to attend shortly that he will be prepared to use his veto if the Council attempts to impose the 1996 date on him? I should like to hear him say that, yes, he will use the veto.

Mr. Channon: I am choosing my words with some care to try to maximise my chances of getting my own way. In his usual helpful way, I know that the hon. Gentleman will want me to get the result that is most satisfactory for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Snape: What is the Secretary of State's record on that?

Mr. Channon: As it happens, so far I have rather a good track record in the Council meetings, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's perpetual calls for my resignation, which we shall no doubt hear again next week—[Interruption.] Well, I shall try not to resign before Budget day.
As I have said, I have chosen my words with some care and hope to get a satisfactory result next week or, if not, to be in a position to report further to the House of Commons—

Mr. Roger Gale: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Channon: Yes. I have almost finished.

Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend has mentioned several times—I understand that it is the basis of the directive—that the derogation is based on bridges. As he is taking a message from this House to Europe, will he take a clear message from the people of Kent who are worried not only about bridges but because we do not want heavier lorries until the entire road infrastructure is suitable for carrying them, which may be a long time ahead?

Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristic robust support. I think that the whole House will support me—I hope that it will—because that would very much strengthen my hand in the difficult negotiations next week. For tonight, I ask the House to support the Government's motion.

Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be grateful at least for the way in which the Secretary of State presented his case. We have seen a new and revitalised Secretary of State. In deputising for his hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, I can tell him that he is almost as good as the original when it comes to wit and humour. The Secretary of State will do very well.
In general, we welcome what the Secretary of State said, although I noticed that he was careful not to give a direct answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). There has been a surprising turnabout in the Secretary of State's attitude over the past few weeks—

Mr. Cash: Get on with it.

Mr. Snape: I shall explain in a minute. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) should curb his natural impatience and I shall tell him how the turnabout arose. The Select Committee on European Legislation recently considered these matters. On 21 February 1989 it issued an advisory brief stating:
Although the conclusion of the Commission is unambiguous, and it has submitted a draft Directive which it suggests hopefully should be agreed by 1 July this year, the Department's EM is ambiguous, giving no firm indication of the Government's line".


The same Committee looked again at what was emerging from the Department on these matters on 6 March and said:
The supplementary … now submitted is explicitly opposed to the Commission's proposal but complicates the issue by pointing out that the Government will be seeking at the next Transport Council to defend the United Kingdom's maximum 10·5 tonne drive axle weight in relation to two, three and four axled vehicles without the protection of unanimity 
While we welcome this dramatic conversion, I hope I will be forgiven for asking how it came about. Did it have anything to do with the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East sent the right hon. Gentleman a letter, a copy of which I have with me, urging him to veto the regulations?
That letter was dated 1 March. By 3 March the new Channon had emerged, and the man who will be heading for the EEC on Wednesday has been strengthened by the support he has received from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I know that he welcomes that support—he told us earlier that he did—and I hope that he will defend British interests as robustly as he implied he would and will tell his fellow Ministers that this House agrees with him—or perhaps I should say that he agrees with this House—that the regulations should be opposed.

Mr. Cash: As a member of the Select Committee, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that he is being less than disingenuous in criticising the Government for their ambiguity because the Select Committee said in its most recent report:
The Committee notes that the Government disagrees with the Commission's proposal.
In that context, I cannot see how he can claim that the Government are being ambiguous.

Mr. Snape: I do not want to get bogged down in a discussion about who said what. I was quoting from an advisory brief from the Committee dated 21 February, so I cannot be accused of being ingenuous—

Mr. Cash: I said "disingenuous."

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting Inc. One gets free instructions from a solicitor when taking part in these debates late at night. It is rare for them to give anything away for nothing, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stafford for his efforts.
The fact that the Secretary of State has changed his mind is to be welcomed, although he could not resist going in for the usual propaganda by claiming that the introduction of heavier goods vehicles into this country will mean, first, that they will carry more and, secondly, that there will be fewer of them. We have heard that story frequently over the years and we may be forgiven our wry smiles on hearing it yet again.
Looking back at the history of legislation on heavy vehicles, it is interesting to note how often it has been stated that the latest demand for heavier vehicles would, if approved, result in fewer such vehicles being on our roads. The first time I heard that argued was in 1943 when, making a plea to remove the then 20 mph speed restriction on heavy goods vehicles, the organisation which is now known as the Freight Transport Association claimed:
Enabling heavy goods vehicles to go faster will mean that there will be less of them on our roads.

That song has been sung for nearly 50 years. It was not true in the 1940s and it is not true now. Conservative Members know it is not true because they have heard it being sung for as long as I have, and my recollection in the House goes back 15 years.

Mr. Tim Smith: It is a fact.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman who represented Ashfield until they rumbled him—now the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith)—says it is true. If and when he is released from the confines of the House, which we hope will be sooner rather than later, and he takes a look outside, he will find that even in the short time that he has been back here as a Member the number of heavy goods vehicles on our roads has increased dramatically. I hope that I do not have to spend the few minutes available to me explaining those realities to Conservative Members.
As for the argument that speeding up the vehicles will help—again an argument that has been around for 50 years—if hon. Members look at the congestion on the M25 I hope they will recognise that it is immaterial from the point of view of reducing numbers how much the vehicles carry. If they are not going anywhere in any case, we can easily see that there might be more of them rather than fewer.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: We are waiting for the hon. Gentleman to say something pertinent to the: documents we are considering. Having attacked the interesting contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), the hon. Gentleman went on to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), without saying anything of substance. Does he not agree that the trend should be to encourage the gradual development of heavier lorries, coupled with the logical and rational zonal and local restrictions which are needed? If we compare what happens here with what happens in France, in Paris juggernauts are prohibited and there is trans-shipment into smaller vehicles, which seems to work well. Why does not the hon. Gentleman support with more enthusiasm the excellent provisions of the Dykes Act—the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Control and Regulations) Act 1973—drafted by me, aided by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford? It has contributed to some 675 schemes up and down the country for restrictions on the access, parking and movement of heavy lorries.

Mr. Snape: I am a great advocate and proponent of the Dykes Act. It is sad that more local authorities did not adopt it as enthusiastically as a handful have. On the first part of his intervention, I will tell the hon. Gentleman why things do not work as well here as they do, for example, in Paris or in other parts of the EEC. It can be summed up in one simple word—enforcement. The enforcement of the law on heavy goods vehicles is scandalously low. I will give some statistics to illustrate that in a moment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is somewhat wearily shaking his head. I think it is a bit late for him to be out. Of course, he is a great man for talking about a crackdown on cowboys in relation to heavy goods vehicles. When it comes to cracking down on cowboys, he is about as successful as the Indians in the films that I used to watch when I was a boy. On enforcement, it is the hon. Gentleman's bow and arrow against the repeating rifles of the cavalry, I am afraid [Interruption.] The officers had swords; I am talking about the Under-Secretary.
Enforcement is the great problem. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is such a great European enthusiast, ought to recognise that one reason why my hon. Friends and I are sceptical of these and other proposals about heavy goods vehicles is that the level of enforcement in this country is as low as it has ever been.

Mr. Conal Gregory: In view of the comments the hon. Gentleman has just made about enforcement, will he deplore the attitude of the Transport and General Workers Union in not acting more strenuously in regard to its members, exposed in "Transport Week" last week, who indicated that they will continue to flout the law? Is he relying upon the state rather than his powers in that trade union?

Mr. Snape: We all know well that if individual drivers in the heavy goods vehicles and road haulage business were to tell their employers that they intended to abide by the law, it would be an open invitiation for them to be shown the door. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory), whose anti-union credentials are well known in the House, is a most enthusiastic supporter of legislation undermining the rights of individuals, including lorry drivers, at their place of work. I would be grateful for a period of silence on the hon. Gentleman's part with regard to enforcement.
In these matters I rely on articles in a recent publication, "Transport Week", which set out starkly and categorically the Department of Transport's failings in connection with heavy goods vehicles. I have met Karen Miles only once, when she came to a press conference at the House. I have no reason to suppose that she is a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, so I would not have thought that we could automatically mistrust what she has to say about the Department and enforcement. We are concerned by the fact that enforcement is so appallingly weak.
Although I hope that I do not have to quote from Karen Miles, article too extensively, her article states:
Research by Transport Week among the 219 traffic examiners"—
and that is all there are throughout the country—
responsible for ensuring HGV and PSV operators comply with operators' licence regulations, including drivers' hours limits, has revealed a growing feeling of powerlessness to control the rising tide of law breaking.
The article went on to state that
Detailed discussions with traffic examiners and senior traffic examiners in 6 of the 9 traffic areas have uncovered some startling failings in the enforcement system.
The article explains that in the north-east, in Leeds, there is no money to bring prosecutions of HGV offences until April. The Conservative party may be proud of that level of enforcement, but I must stress that Labour Members are extremely unhappy with that deplorable level of enforcement and we shall demonstrate that unhappiness through our determination to ensure that there is no easing in terms of axle and all-up weights of heavy goods vehicles until we get some assurances about these problems.
I hope that I have at least partially answered some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, East and that I can take him some way towards believing that enforcement is vital, but is not receiving the important consideration that it deserves from the Government at the moment.
The Government's whole attitude to intermodal traffic and traffic that could be partially carried by rail is called into question by the regulations and derogations. The Department of Transport's inactivity over the past few years has led directly to a transfer of freight from the railways to the roads. That is directly contrary to the general principle running throughout the Community and is directly contrary to regulations that the Community introduced as long ago as 1975.
I urge the Secretary of State and his colleagues to consider the way in which other EEC countries have, in various ways, subsidised their road haulage industries. The normal reason given by those countries for having such subsidies is that they want to encourage the transfer of traffic from road to rail. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that the British road haulage system's dependence on market forces has not been particularly successful, especially with regard to United Kingdom-continental traffic.
Three years ago British-based hauliers carried over 60 per cent. of United Kingdom-continental traffic. They now carry 42 per cent. according to the Freight Transport Association. There are signs that the decline in Britain's share of that traffic is accelerating rather than being reversed. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the examples set by some of his ministerial counterparts and will do what he can to reverse that trend. For example, he could encourage his opposite numbers in various parts of the EC to look at some of the developments taking place for road and rail vehicles in this country.
Developments are being undertaken in the private sector by companies such as Tiphook, whose piggy-back wagon, it believes, is capable of revolutionising the United Kingdom's continental road haulage network. It wants, not financial encouragement—it is not coming cap in hand for a subsidy from the Department—but, as I understand it, some degree of publicly expressed support. It also wants support within the EC for these newer methods of haulage, and for the Government to follow the example of other EC countries and reverse this country's apparently unique trend of transferring freight from the railways to the roads.
We are grateful for the Secretary of State's earlier comments, but we would still like to hear from him, or any other members of the entourage that he will no doubt take with him on Wednesday, of his determination to use, if necessary, his veto on some of these proposals. If the Secretary of State does that, he can be assured that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him, which should please him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] The Secretary of State will be relieved to know that my hon. Friend will shortly be returning to stand shoulder to shoulder with him—probably when I have finished the speech that I am making on his behalf. I hope that the Secretary of State will not weaken. We welcome his transformation into the tough and witty man he has become over the past few days. Long may that transformation continue, because it has our support.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: Enforcement or no enforcement, we have wanted derogation from this order for a long time. Not for the first


time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have the fullest support of everyone who lives in the part of the world which I represent.
We are debating a very important issue, at the centre of which is the quality of life. The order refers mainly to bridges but it will also affect small roads, villages, houses and the general quality of life in the rural areas of this country. The euphemism "local roads" is used, but they are really country lanes. If anyone thinks that they are suitable for 40-tonne vehicles carrying 40-tonne loads, he is wrong. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I know that he is capable of it—will make sure that his partners in the EC are put right on that issue.
I represent an area which is the principal source of the stone required for roads and buildings in the south—certainly the south-east—and know that heavy-vehicle traffic on country roads is essential and cannot be avoided. It has to travel on country roads before it can get near the major trunk routes. The numbers of movements past some of the small farms, villages and towns in my area are inevitable. One particular lorry route from the quarries in my constituency handles 600 movements a day, which cause an immense amount of damage, not only to bridges but to everything.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has my fullest support to ensure that the limitations on these heavy vehicles remains in place for as long as possible.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State's clear statement that he will resist these European measures. A major factor in the demand for road upgrading is the perennial problem of heavy lorries. Although road haulage is often sold as cheap and efficient, the hidden expenses for taxpayers involved in supporting the moving of freight on the roads are considerable.
The Audit Commission report on road maintenance stated that 50 per cent. of damage was caused by heavy goods vehicles with more than four axles. In Somerset, the cost of road maintenance has trebled in less than a decade. The Audit Commission also said that damage caused by lorries to roads costs £600 million a year. That does not take into account the grave damage that the Secretary of State described to bridges, buildings and under-road services.
Inquiries such as those conducted by Foster, Armitage and Wood examined the problems of heavy lorries, but most of their recommendations have not yet been implemented. I regret that the tendency has been to implement them half-heartedly, if at all.
Document 4311/89 from the Commission claims that by 1996 a substantial part of the United Kingdom's road network will be ready to take heavier 40-tonne, 11·5 axle vehicles. In its explanation, the Commission largely concentrates on the conflict between keeping down road transport costs and the damage to roads. The more heavily a lorry operator loads his axles, the more goods he can transport at least expense—but the greater the expense to the public because of the increased costs of the maintenance and provision of roads adequate for these weights.
The Commission states:
Recent studies in the USA and elsewhere have shown that increases in gross vehicle weight and axle weight can be justified in terms of overall benefit to the economy, in spite of the additional infrastructure costs.

The Commission sees these costs as moderate, but the increased costs of road building and maintenance have yet to be evaluated and it is clear that roads and motorways will have to be built and rebuilt to more expensive specifications to take account of the punishment they are likely to receive. I suspect that that is at the root of the Secretary of State's and the Government's unwillingness to accept what the EEC is saying.
I should like to take this further, and it is a shame that the Secretary of State did not It is questionable whether the extra weights that the United Kingdom is being urged to comply with are necessary in the vast majority of cases. The road haulage industry has proliferated over the past few years to such an extent that many other aspects of the infrastructure of this country have been ignored. Railways come high on the list of such aspects. At the same time, the road system is crumbling under the pressure put on it by heavy lorries. I deplore this as an unnecessary use of resources and despoliation of the environment.
Since the Armitage report, some additional expenditure has been permitted in the form of constructing bypasses to alleviate the worst effects of the decision to allow an increase in the permitted weight to 38 tonnes on five axles, but I consider even the present situation—let alone that to which Europe wants us to move—deeply unsatisfactory. Design standards have proved inadequate to cope, and the. damage attributed to these vehicles may be underestimated by as much as a factor of three. On motorways and heavily used roads the damage factor, as road designers call it, has more than doubled since 1970, and forecasts have suggested that that damage factor will treble and rise by as much as 340 per cent. by the year 2005.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons for the problems to which he has pointed is that Department of Transport forecasts for road usage are usually painfully wrong, and that we need to move to a different system of forecasting? Furthermore, talking of motorways for the next century, does he agree that a motorway to the north-east of England is an urgent priority?

Mr. Taylor: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he agrees with me that underestimates certainly occur in respect of road links to the south-west. One reason for that is the Department of the Environment's failure to consider the effect of the traffic that is brought on to new roads. An obvious example of that is the A30, and the efforts of myself and other hon. Members to introduce a dual-carriage standard.
There may be certain operations where the Commission's "larger means fewer" rule applies. That said, it is important to acknowledge that new roads, as well as large vehicles, have made lorry-kilometres and tonne-kilometres by road much cheaper than they would be otherwise. In a sense, a few major road schemes have reinforced the problems and inconvenience caused to those living off those schemes, along routes to which lorries are directed after they have covered the longest part of their journey, if not the longest in terms of time.
The dominance of road transport over other forms of transport has been reinforced by the Government's policy of calculating the economic values of different schemes. It is clear that the public is dissatisfied with certain road


developments and Government priorities. National surveys on road traffic and the environment undertaken in the late 1970s showed that millions of people were disturbed by lorries in a variety of different ways. National studies have been carried out since then, and perhaps it is just as well for the road transport lobby that the Secretary of State's arguments cannot be reinforced by the findings of those studies when he goes to Europe. I do not doubt that lorries still account for a major part of the environmental problems that people experience, and that they are disliked as widely as ever.
If I drive from Truro to St. Austell in my own constituency, I find myself following heavy lorries through a series of tiny villages—Tresillian, with its hairpin, and another at Probus, and then down the hill to Grampound, where there are both speeding lorries descending, and others struggling to climb the hill, before reaching Sticker, and so on. That route almost defines the kind of problems that heavy lorries can cause.

Mr. Cash: Is not the hon. Gentleman attacking one of the mainsprings of his own constituency's economic activities—the china clay industry, and all the heavy lorries that carry that product?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Clearly, he is not familiar with my constituency, because the route that I described runs from the west of Cornwall towards the direction of the china clay industry. No lorries transporting china clay would be found on the route that I described. The hon. Gentleman displays an ignorance of my part of the world that is not altogether surprising, but he would do better to resist the temptation to intervene.
I refer also to the problems of villages such as Treviscoe, at the heart of china clay country. That village recently experienced problems as a result of lorries transporting quarry materials for the new runway at RAF St. Mawgan in Newquay—not only all week but on Sundays, from as early as 6 o'clock in the morning. There may be some economic benefits for the area's industry, but I believe that the economic disbenefits to the village—90 per cent. of whose population probably work in that industry—probably outweigh them. It was certainly the villagers' unanimous opinion that a brake should be placed on that transport.
Last summer,visited properties in the road that runs through the village of Mevagissey, in which floors are coming away from walls, and furniture moves across the floor because there is no banning of the kind for which the Act of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) allows, and which has my support. In villages such as Mevagissey, the proper facilities for the transportation of heavy goods just do not exist. Underinvestment in the infrastructure allows such problems to continue.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) raised a question about the transport infrastructure for St. Austell and for the china clay district. The problem is that St. Austell, which is not only the largest town in the county but at the heart of its economy, is entirely cut off from the major road system. No road investment has been made in that area. That is partly because the grants system for that area has been removed. I was in St. Austell at the launch last week of a report by the Action 2000 Committee which pressed for the major road links that are needed. That

report gave an illustration of how lorries have to negotiate tiny country lanes and small towns. Without the infrastructure that I have mentioned, the Secretary of State is right to resist what Europe proposes and should go further and try to take heavier lorries out of many areas.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that problems are caused in his constituency and in most areas of the south-west by the continual closure and rundown of the railways and the loss of the possibility of rail freight taking heavy loads over long distances? Road haulage causes serious environmental damage and there is great pressure by the road haulage industry to have bigger and bigger lorries which will cause greater and greater damage to the environment.

Mr. Taylor: I accept that. I said that earlier in my speech but perhaps I should mention it again. The problem must be considered in a far more fundamental and broader way than Europe or, I regret to say, the Minister has looked at it. We must examine the entire infrastructure and look at how we can best meet the need of people for goods to get from one place to another. That is more important than the need of the road transport lobby to get goods moved cheaply.
If we looked properly at the overall environmental and economic costs of transport, we would see the need for far more emphasis being placed on railways and on building main trunk routes and facilities for offloading to smaller vehicles. Neither the European Commission nor the Minister place enough emphasis on those matters. We have much under-utilised transport infrastructure, particularly on the railways. That is a disgrace and is leading to many of the problems that I highlighted in my constituency.
The Democrats are well known to be committed to the maintenance and improvement of the transport infrastructure. I have no doubt that the ending of the United Kingdom derogation on lorry weights would benefit British business, but I am convinced that it would be of no benefit to the British people. No one could accuse me of being anti European and I am quite prepared, if I must, to accept petrol in litres, butter in kilogrammes or, indeed, kilometres—although I should prefer not to. The derogations are about more fundamental issues. They are about people's properties, the environment and the standard of life of people in many villages that still have to put up with heavy traffic. In many cases people have to put up with danger as well.
I regret that the Secretary of State did not go further in recognising that, in supporting greater investment in the railways and in evening up his attitude to investment in roads, as it is called, and what is called subsidy to the railways. Nevertheless, I support him in resisting what the European Commissioners are trying to do and hope that he is successful.

Mr. Gary Waller: It is already apparent that there is opposition to the Commission's proposal on the ground that at the Commission's behest we are asked to implement a significant change in our practice. I often have a great deal of sympathy for that attitude, but one needs to draw a distinction between cases in which there is a genuine Community interest and those in which there is


not. In the latter category, I place many road safety measures. It is quite unacceptable, for example, to propose directives to bring our provisions designed to deter drink-driving into line with those of our Community partners. In the case of lorry weights and dimensions, there is a genuine Community interest which cannot be denied. On this occasion, therefore, I would not side with the case which, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) would have put if he had been here.
If we accept that point, we have to consider whether there is any overwhelming reason why we need a very great deal of time to fall into line with other European countries which have already accepted lorries of 40 tonnes and, indeed, more. It is worth going back to the decision that this House made in November 1982 to permit on our roads lorries of 38 tonnes, with their weight distributed over five axles, compared with lorries of up to 32·5 tonnes, which was the maximum until then.
Hon. Members will remember that the change that was made at that time incorporated one of the recommendations of the Armitage report on lorries, people and the environment. That report included many recommendations which have been implemented—in particular, new controls on height and length, a requirement for side guards and rear under-guards to bring about greater safety. New mud-spray protection has also been introduced.
Having studied carefully all the evidence at that time about the load on road surfaces and bridges, Professor Armitage and his colleagues recommended a maximum 40-tonne vehicle on five axles. I think it was well known at that time—the press recorded the fact—that the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), was undecided between 38 and 40 tonnes. The decision to opt for 38 tonnes was ultimately made, not because it was thought that Professor Armitages's technical conclusions were wrong, but because it was felt that, in political terms, and in the context of public opinion, there was a cliff to be scaled. It was felt that the rise of 5·5 tonnes was acceptable, whereas one of 7·5 tonnes was not—and at that time it may well have been right. Hon. Members will recall that at that time the Government had a majority in this House of just over 40, and, despite the gravest forebodings of the Patronage Secretary, there was a majority of 63 in favour of 38 tonnes, on a vote which took place at 10 o'clock, in circumstances designed to ensure that the views of the House as a whole were fully expressed. Many subsequently asked why such caution had been demonstrated at that time.
Since 1982 we have had a chance to test some of the hypotheses that were set out in that debate, during which many were sceptical about the claim that heavier lorries, even though they were only marginally longer to accommodate a bigger cab, would mean fewer lorries on our roads. Hon. Members were not then assuaged by the argument put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford that, for each tonne of freight carried, the new five or six-axle requirement must mean much less damage, because 38 tonnes could be carried with the same average axle weight as the 32·5-tonne vehicle, involving the need for fewer vehicles. However, in fact, there are now very many fewer lorries on the roads than would have been the case if we had stayed at 32·5 tonnes.

Mr. Roger Moate: How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Waller: I am asked how I know. I refer hon. Members to the Department of Transport statistical bulletin 88/44, which reveals that in 1987 the total was 7,800 fewer than would have been the case if we had had the lower limit.
Since 1987 there has been an unprecedented increase in the amount of goods carried by heavy lorries, and it would probably be no exaggeration to say that the saving in the number of lorries of essentially the same size as before is, by now, 10,000. That is why I claim, with some confidence, that the increase in lorry weights has been extremely friendly to the environment. Where we should be now if we had to accommodate all those extra lorries on our roads I shudder to think.
The environmental and economic factors that applied in 1982 are just as valid today, although we are talking about a much smaller weight difference. Freight movements continue to increase in number and scale. However much we would like to move traffic off the roads and on to the trains, there can be no doubt that something like 90 per cent. of all our inland freight will continue to move on the roads. Even if we were to increase the volume of goods carried by train by 50 per cent.—which I should like—there would still be a reduction of only 4 per cent. in the volume carried on the roads.

Mr. David Nicholson: I hope that my hon. Friend will start to take into account the effects that the Channel tunnel will have on the movement of freight off the roads and on to the railways, as those of us who support the tunnel hope, so that we may exploit the major intercontinental railway system.

Mr. Waller: I agree entirely. Indeed, I have just made that very point. But I go further: if we were to double the volume of goods carried on our trains—and I do not think that anyone believes that that would be possible—we would still have only an 8 per cent. decrease.

Mr. Moate: Four per cent.

Mr. Waller: It would be 4 per cent. if it went up by 50 per cent. There would be an 8 per cent. decrease in the amount carried on the roads. We know that in one recent year there was more than an 8 per cent. increase in the amount of goods on the roads.
On this occasion we can categorically state that there will be no increase in vehicle size when the derogation ends. In effect, existing lorries will be able to carry a payload which is 2 tonnes greater. That will enable our operators to compete more effectively, and it will guarantee that fewer lorries will travel on our roads than would be the case if we had stuck with the 38-tonne limit. Therefore, environmental factors clearly point to an early uprating.
In economic terms also, the case is strong. The increase in vehicle weights which took place on 1 May 1983 saved our industry and consumers about £250 million by 1986, and produced a saving of £60 million in road wear, to the benefit of the taxpayer. Taking a further step of two more tonnes would provide an additional saving of at least £76 million.

Mr. Cryer: Where did the hon. Gentleman get the statistics, on what are they based, and what calculations are involved?

Mr. Waller: The figures are well known, and they are certainly obtainable from numerous sources.

Mr. Snape: The Road Haulage Association.

Mr. Waller: They certainly were not produced to me by the Road Haulage Association. They have been produced by the Road Transport Association: The Transport and General Workers Union has also been in favour of higher weight lorries on our roads. The arguments are put by many organisations.
Freight is a significant contributor to company costs. It has been pointed out that a 10 per cent. rise in freight costs leads to a 1 per cent. increase in average prices. When margins are tight and international competitiveness is vital, that could be the crucial factor.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that, in any event, the bridge improvement programme on which the Government have embarked will be necessary to cope with existing 38-tonne lorries, regardless of whether we decided to move up at an early date.
As the Commission said, it makes nonsense to take into account bridges with a capacity of 7½tonnes. One county surveyor mentioned to me that he knew of a 38-tonne lorry which had gone over a bridge with a maximum limit of 7½ tonnes without causing any apparent damage. We can assume that, to all intents and purposes, whether lorries of 38 or 40 tonnes use such bridges, it will not make a crucial difference. Therefore, the number of bridges that we need to consider is not so great. Bearing in mind the substantial benefit to industry and the environment, we could surely, if necessary, speed up the bridge programme. The return on investment could hardly be bettered. In my book, a one-off payment of £70 million to produce a clear return, which has been estimated at between £76 million and £200 million per annum, seems a pretty good deal.
Other considerations have to be taken into account. If we are seen to be dragged kicking and screaming into line with the rest of Europe the sovereignty issue will unnecessarily be brought into the argument, when, as I have already said, it need not properly apply in a case in which there is a genuine Community interest from which we and our partners can benefit.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman gave the House figures about the cost of the bridge-strengthening programme. The estimated cost of that programme is £600 million, is it not? The estimated benefit of the heavy lorries, which the hon. Gentleman is passionately advocating in the brief which he is reading so well from the Road Transport Association, means that we are paying all that for the benefit of £70 million. That is a ratio of almost 10:1. Is that decent economics?

Mr. Waller: First, I am not reading out any brief. I am referring to my own notes and making my own speech. Let that be absolutely clear.
Secondly, the figures relating to the cost of improving bridges depend on the number of bridges that one believes need to be improved, and that is one of the main arguments.
We should remember that arguments in the Council of Ministers involve trade-offs. If we hold out on this matter, we may have to be more malleable on something else. It is

surely better that we should put our foot down somewhere where it really matters and demonstrate our Community commitment here, where our industry and environment can benefit from a relatively small concession of two tonnes.
Yes, there is a public relations argument to be won, but this time the case is a strong one because we can point to experience related to the environment and to the economic situation. We should accept a derogation to 1995–96, certainly no later, or, better still, move more quickly towards change, thus demonstrating that it is not the wicked European Commission which has driven us but our recognition that logic is on the side of economic and environmental benefit.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Waller: This is a case where the pound signs all have green edges. This, I believe, must be a time for boldness.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I was not sure whether to make a short speech or a long intervention, but I decided in the end in favour of a short speech about just one bridge. The sad and salutary tale of the Severn bridge may be very instructive and supportive for the Secretary of State when he makes his case in Europe.
What we have seen with the Severn bridge is an example of a variant of the problem that Governments in the 1970s had with their incomes policies, that of wage drift. Bridges in this country tend to suffer from weight drift—that is, the constant upward movement of the demands of the designers and users of lorries, coupled with those who operate the weighbridges not always doing so precisely. The maximum weight tends to go above the design weight of the bridge. There is also the overload factor of a fair proportion of the large lorries that we have on our road system: to use a rough figure, probably 10 per cent. of our lorries are running at more than their design weight.
What has happened with the Severn bridge? It was opened in 1966, and 16 years later it was starting to be shaken to its very foundations. It was unable to take the kind of vehicles that were then passing along it, because lorries were running in far greater numbers than had been anticipated and they were tending to run in convoy: they were also far heavier than had been anticipated. The bridge was then unable to cope with that amount of weight.
Lorries in convoy do far more damage than lorries on their own. Lorries which have to stop on a bridge for any reason do far more damage than lorries that are moving. So we can picture a bridge that was designed to carry a certain amount of moving traffic. Suddenly the number of lorries, as a proportion of the total traffic, is doubled. Then we picture the traffic jams on that bridge, which leads to dead load around the main pillars of the bridge. Then suddenly the bridge has to be rebuilt.
The Severn bridge cost £8 million to build in the mid-1960s: it is now being strengthened at a cost of £33 million. Allowing for inflation, it is probably costing roughly the same today to rebuild and strengthen, to cope with exactly the kind of problem that the Secretary of State will be talking about for the generality of Great Britain next week.
Bridge designers design bridges to carry a specific load. If the bridge has to be completely redesigned, it costs as much as it would to build the bridge all over again. This is the problem created by this constant upward drift on the part of the lorry manufacturers and designers and of the people who load and look after the lorries, particularly in the fairly "easy come, easy go" enforcement atmosphere that we have in this country compared with Germany.
The plea that I make to the Secretary of State, for him to carry to Europe, is that everyone should learn from the example of the Severn bridge. That bridge, not long after it was opened and fully running, is almost falling down, and has to be rebuilt.
The only other solution for this country is to have bridgemasters. There are some countries where lorries are not allowed free access to bridges: they are hauled off the bridge and spaced out between 30 and 40 cars to make sure that they are never in convoy. They are never allowed on to the bridge in a traffic jam or in slow-moving traffic, because of this exponential wear and tear on the bridge and its foundations when three or four lorries are caught in a convoy near its main pillars.
What is the alternative? Will the Secretary of State have bridgemasters in this country as the only way of controlling the wear and tear? Would the road haulage industry like to see bridgemasters brought in to prevent the free access of lorries to bridges? That is probably totally unacceptable in Britain, but bridgemasters are found in exceptional circumstances here and there.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is advancing an excellent argument on lorry weights. I ask him to reflect that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and others contend that 44-tonne lorries could have lower axle ratio weights. Surely that is irrelevant when we are dealing with the problems of the Severn bridge, for example, where the total weight of a vehicle, and often its dead weight, damages the construction.

Mr. Morgan: That is correct. In such circumstances the axle weight becomes far less significant than the dead load, especially around the main pillars of the bridge. My hon. Friend has raised an issue on which I have not placed sufficient emphasis. I ask the Minister to take the message to Europe that it is unacceptable that there should be a continuous upward poaching of limits by the road haulage industry, which imposes colossal problems on some of our major estuarial crossings. Let him consider the disappointment that it causes to all those who have been involved in trying to create new jobs in Wales since the great closures in the steel industry in the early 1980s.
The great selling point for Wales was its connection to the motorway system. When an industrialist comes to consider whether he would wish to accept the Government grants that are available to occupy an empty Welsh Development Agency factory, he stops at the Severn bridge, where he sees the traffic jams and the cones. He sees the massive scaffolding around the bridge as it is being reconstructed and he thinks, "This is not the region that I was told about; it is only half connected to the national motorway system." This has proved one of the major disincentives for industry to move into south Wales. It is the result of the continuous poaching by the designers of lorries, which militates against the design of the Severn bridge and other estuarial crossings.
When the Minister goes to Europe he must emphasise that a bridge must by its very nature adhere to its design, whereas the weight of lorries increases by a couple of per cent. a year. The increase in lorry weights must stop at some stage.

Mr. Roger Moate: Only a few months ago I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he was under any pressure to increase lorry weights because of the movement towards harmonisation within the Community, or whether there was any desire on his part to do so. In both respects his answer was effectively no, and I am sure that that was a genuine response.
That makes me feel even more aggrieved, because somehow we have been effectively hijacked into an urgent, not a long-term, decision. Suddenly it has become a matter of urgency, before a Council meeting next week, that the House should come to a decision. That is grossly unfair, especially when we consider that many of us have been involved in an intensive debate for the past decade over whether we should agree to an increase in lorry weights.
Four years ago we arrived at a serious compromise. The result was the United Kingdom securing a derogation. That meant, in effect, a maximum lorry weight of 38 tonnes as opposed to the Community's 40 tonnes. No date was attached to the derogation, which was achieved after a long debate on what we thought was in the best interests of the country. It was settled that we should have a 38-tonne limit and 10·5 tonnes axle weight limit.
What has happened within a short period to persuade the Community to introduce a proposal that we should conform with the limits that apply in the rest of the Community? What sort of Community is it that tries to enforce upon a member state by diktat something that the United Kingdom deems to be against its interests? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in October 1988 that he was not in favour of an increase in limits. Similarly, the House is not in favour of an increase. I should like the robust message to go forth from both sides of the House that it does not want a change in limits to be forced upon it. I hope that there will not be a Division. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to say next week to the Community that Britain believes that to be in the national interest, although there are arguments for and against the proposition that is now before us, until such time as we deem it right to accept a change in our national interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has spoken in favour of a change in limits. There is a sense of déjà vu about that as no one changes his view. My hon. Friend was urging strongly for an increase in lorry weight some years ago, but we settled on a limit of 38 tonnes.
I accept, of course, that there is an argument in favour of a 40 tonnes, 44 tonnes, or 50 tonnes limit. There is an economic argument for carrying heavier and heavier weights. If we settle on the 40 tonne limit for which the Community is asking it will not stop there. Other Community members have internal weights of 44 tonnes or 50 tonnes.
I accept that the Freight Transport Association may argue that its members will benefit from an increase in lorry weights, but the House must judge the balance of argument. Many years ago the House considered the


environmental effects and the road costs and decided that the balance of advantage lay with the 38 tonne limit. It was agreed that our roads and especially our bridges, of which there are 85,000, were not capable of taking heavy lorry weights. Who will tell the people that our roads and our country lanes are ready to carry heavier lorries? One could tell the county councils that they could impose lorry weights and width restrictions, but let them try to get those restrictions secured. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who introduced the worthy Dykes Bill, knows all about this. It is wonderful to have lorry routes, but how many have we got?
It will be many years before we can decide whether we are ready to accept much heavier lorries. We have been through all this before. Why has the matter suddenly arisen again? What good does it do the Community to force upon us something that we have decided, collectively, is not in our interests?
Currently I believe that we have veto rights on whether to increase the 38 tonne and 10·5 axle weight limits. My right hon. Friend should go to the Community and emphasise that that right should be open-ended and that until we choose, as and when, to try to change that limit to secure a commercial benefit which we might then deem right, it should remain a permanent or rather open-ended derogation. We have done it with the pint of milk, the pint of beer and the mile measurement.
I am told that at the Council meeting next week the Community might well say that on 2, 3 and 4 tonne axle weights, which are not subject to derogation, it can impose higher limits on us. We are entitled to further explanation about that. My right hon. Friend should not sacrifice our veto over the heaviest lorries and the heaviest axle weights for some short-term benefit which we might secure on the smaller vehicles. All we will gain on the deal will be one to three years. My right hon. Friend should keep the veto power because the one thing that matters to us is our right to ensure that the heaviest vehicles do not inflict the damage that we know they will inflict on our unsuitable roads.
Ultimately I am sure that in our lifetime—it may vary from Member to Member—we will have harmonisation. Whether that is achieved in this century or the next, which is not far away, should be a matter for our judgment. By doing so we are not doing down our competitors; if anything we may be doing down ourselves. We are not putting impediments in the way of free trade as the same rules apply to European vehicles coming into this country as apply to British vehicles. By urging the retention of the 38-tonne limit as opposed to the 40-tonne limit we are not imposing a great burden on industry. My right hon. Friend has already explained to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that any subsequent extra road costs could be offset by higher vehicle excise duties. It does not follow that there would be any net benefit to members of the FTA from increasing the limit.
I am not suggesting that we should hold on to our right to derogate for ever, but it should be in our power to decide if and when it would be in our interests to harmonise with other Community members.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I want to add to the bipartisanship tonight and send our wishes to the Secretary of State when he goes to speak for Britain in Brussels. He is right. It has nothing to do with the fact that this year is European election year and that sometimes, in some quarters, it looks good to take on Brussels. The Secretary of State is doing this because it is right. It is right to let the Council know that we shall decide when and if British roads and bridges are ready to take the heavier loads.
I want to make two small constituency points because many heavy lorries run through my constituency. The M6 motorway, which has miles of viaducts which are nothing more than a continuous bridge in a technical sense, runs through the heart of Birmingham. The viaducts have been badly damaged over the years and a fortune has had to be spent in continually keeping them in good repair. That is a small part of the cost involved and there would be an extra cost if the lorries became even heavier.
My second point concerns the time when the bridge strengthening programme is under way. The Birmingham container port is in my constituency. When hon. Members drive up the M6 through Birmingham, they may see containers stacked high on both sides of the road. It is the vast car park area of the container port. The heavy lorries carrying the containers cannot get from the motorway to the container port. There is a private tunnel under the M6 motorway which is technically a bridge. Heaven knows that what is needed is a direct access from the motorway to the container port. All the heavy lorries have to come off the motorway at Gravelly Hill, Spaghetti junction, or the Great Barr interchange and then travel on ordinary suburban roads, some of which have bridges which will need strengthening. When the planning is done for such container ports alongside motorways, we could spend some money in the next few years on the bridge strengthening programme to save much more money in the years to come. If we could get the lorries immediately off the motorway into the container port areas, there would be less damage to road surfaces, less danger and less damage to buildings in ordinary suburban roads.
I make no apology for making essentially constituency points and they add weight to the arguments of the Secretary of State. I hope that when the planning is done for the expenditure on bridge strengthening, such practical points for saving money in the future can be taken into account.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) made a—

Mr. Cryer: By leave of the House.

Mr. Channon: I ask the leave of the House, but I think that I am entitled to speak now as it is my motion anyway. If I need the leave of the House, I shall ask for it. I do ask for it, but if the House says no, I shall not mind very much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley in his powerful speech made the economic case for the 40-tonne lorry and the change that he thinks would be right. However, I am sure that he would agree that the majority of hon. Members do not take that view at this stage. There has been near unanimity that I should, next week, try to stand firm at the Council meeting and deal—

Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Channon: In a second. There has been near unanimity that I should try to stand firm and oppose the Commission's proposal on the two, three and four-axle limits.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House is very full and that the Commission should note that the House of Commons is taking an extremely active interest in all this?

Mr. Channon: It will become perfectly clear that the House of Commons takes an extremely active interest in this question and is anxious that we should not give way on the question of 40-tonne lorries on our roads. The Commission is saying that we should not be compelled to do so until our bridges are in a fit state. The point of serious disagreement is about when that point will be. For the reasons that I have already given, I do not believe that what the Commission says about our bridges is in any way accurate when compared with what we say.
I have only two minutes and should like to make several brief points. In his excellent two-minute speech my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) referred to trying to get as long a derogation as possible. I take that to heart. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) took us on a charming tour of Cornwall and referred to the cost of road maintenance. I take his point but should point out that we are the only country in Europe that covers its track costs in relation to lorries. However, if the damage that lorries cause to roads were to increase, we should have to increase vehicle excise duty accordingly to ensure that we cover our track costs. We are trying to get the rest of the Community to cover its track costs but so far we are making slow progress.

It being one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14(1)(b).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4311/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 6th March 1989 on the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles; notes the development of the circumstances which justified the derogations accorded to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland from certain provisions of Directive 85/3; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that a premature end date to the derogations is not imposed on the United Kingdom.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Resolved,
That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th October 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Resolved,
That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Resolved,
That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL LAW

Resolved,
That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (United States of America) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

Resolved,
That the draft Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Resolved,
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That—
(1) this House do meet on Thursday 23rd March at half-past Nine o'clock;
(2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit Questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and
(3)at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that this House shall not adjourn until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Orders of the Day — Northern Ballet Theatre

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Mr. Stanley Orme: This debate is about the threatened closure of the Northern Ballet Theatre—a ballet company that is based in Manchester, with a national and international reputation. The debate is timely, and, although the company is threatened with closure following a report commissioned by the Arts Council, I hope to prove that the responsibility for its survival rests firmly with the present Government.
What are the facts? The Arts Council commissioned a report, which has now been produced, called "Stepping Forward"—I have a copy with me—which was compiled by Graham Devlin. It states bluntly that the subsidy of £661,500 granted to the Northern Ballet Theatre should end. Graham Devlin is honest enough to admit that, as a drama specialist, he is not qualified to make detailed artistic judgments about dance.
What is the case for the Northern Ballet? I have already mentioned its high standing and only recently it won national and international acclaim for its most celebrated production, a dance drama based on the life of L.S. Lowry and called "A Simple Man".
Not only is it a provincial company, but it resides within an inner-city area of Manchester. In fact, this organisation creates employment for upwards of 100 people which, in an area of high unemployment, is not to be lightly discarded. It is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), and close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). I am pleased to see so many of my hon. Friends in their places, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), and many other hon. Members of all parties.
The Northern Ballet Theatre itself admits that the artistic standards of the company were variable prior to Christopher Gable's arrival. However, his skill in training has transformed the company. It is important to give Christopher Gable three to five years to develop the company. The well-known dancer and choreographer, Dame Ninette de Valois, always said that it took up to five years to get anything accomplished in the world of ballet.
The artistic director of the Bolshoi, Andre Petrov, recently visited the United Kingdom to evaluate the Northern Ballet, as he was considering mounting a work on the company and taking some of its young dancers, average age 21, to Moscow to work with the Bolshoi in a filmed version of the work. He liked what he saw and was highly enthusiastic about the project. It is now being seriously planned with BBC North-West. His is surely a judgment not to be ignored. That is one example of the exciting plans that Christopher has for the company, which may never reach fruition.
Let us consider the hard financial facts. The Northern Ballet Theatre's box office income for 1987–88 was £556,862. The company is beginning to raise significant amounts by way of sponsorship and private funding. From a low base of £14,000 in 1987–88, it hopes to raise £70,000 this year, although that target may not be met, as potential sponsors are, understandably, nervous about the company, and businesses are delaying committing

themselves because of the threatened closure. The Minister revealed recently that the Northern Ballet Theatre continued to receive less than half the seat subsidy given to any other major dance company.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Give the figures.

Mr. Orme: I will do that. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford in his place, because the company is close to his constituency.
The figures are revealing. The Festival Ballet receives subsidy of £11 per seat; the Royal Ballet, £20·25; Sadler's Wells, £16·55; London Contemporary Dance, £9·50; Ballet Rambert, £12·25; and the Northern Ballet Theatre, £4·60. That last figure speaks volumes, especially considering the work of this company.
In 1987–88, the Northern Ballet Theatre gave 196 regional performances and had a total audience of 157,780. It received an Arts Council subsidy of £661,500. The Royal Ballet, Sadler's Wells and the Festival Ballet combined gave 186, not 196, regional performances. They had a total audience of 248,258—only slightly higher than the Northern Ballet's total audience—and the Arts Council subsidy for those three companies was £7,256,500. That shows the strength of the Northern Ballet Theatre's case.
Graham Devlin makes the point in his report that dance is under-funded in Britain. His suggestion to cut Northern Ballet is made on the premise that the Arts Council—and, implicitly, the Government—will not be able to increase the dance budget. The targeting avoids the need to fund Northern Ballet properly. Mr. Devlin admitted in his report that the company is under-funded to the tune of £100,000 to £150,000. Those are the financial facts.
On the Government's role, it is not a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I welcome support for London-based companies, just as I support regional development in dance, theatre or music. There are outstanding examples in the arts in Manchester; apart from dance, we have the Hallé orchestra and the Royal Exchange theatre. In Leeds there is Opera North. Then there are the Welsh and Scottish opera companies, among others. They cover the whole spectrum of the arts, which are crucial to our cultural life.
The report paints a devastating picture of what is happening to the live arts in Britain. The central issue is that the Arts Council is starved of the necessary money to fund the live arts, whether in London or the provinces. If the report is adopted when the Arts Council considers it in detail in April, it will be the provinces that will suffer major cuts. It is another example of the north-south divide in society and we cannot stand for that.
I understand that the Arts Council's main problem arises from the fact that it can give an increase for the next two years of only 2 per cent. to all organisations, although inflation is running at 7 per cent. Something has to give. What will give initially is the Northern Ballet Theatre, because, against many other artistic developments, it is seen as expendable. It is a northern company; it is out of sight and does not matter. That view will be taken by some people.
The Government should increase the grant to the Arts Council to cover the rise in inflation. Compared with what is contributed by the Governments in West Germany and France, our contribution is minimal and it should be


increased. I understand that the Arts Council has applied for an increased grant. I ask the Minister to give the House tonight the Government's reply to that application. That will help resolve the problem. I urge the Minister to accept the arguments that I have put forward and to save an outstanding artistic company.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) on his initiative in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I am grateful to him for allowing me a few minutes of the precious time allocated to him.
Millions more will congratulate my right hon. Friend if he is successful in achieving his aim—the continuation of funding for the Northern Ballet Theatre. I, like other hon. Members from the north-west, have received numerous expressions of concern about the proposal by the Arts Council to cease funding. Without financial support, the Northern Ballet Theatre will not survive. What a tragedy. That ballet company comprises young enthusiastic dancers, musicians and stage staff who have all worked extremely hard and are dedicated. However, they all face redundancy. The pleasure that they give to so many people will be tragically lost.
Although the Northern Ballet Theatre is situated in my constituency, it reaches a much wider audience. It often appears in medium-sized theatres and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said, it has won national and international acclaim with its ballet "A Simple Man" based on the artist Lowry, who hailed from Salford.
I doubt whether people in the south would understand what Low ry's paintings were about. People in the south do not understand what the Northern Ballet Theatre is about. It is England's only regional ballet company and something about which the north-west is proud. In comparison with other regions, the north-west has been deprived in many ways. We talk incessantly about the north-south divide. The disparity between the seat subsidy for London-based dance companies and the Northern Ballet Theatre is a glaring example of that bias, because the Northern Ballet Theatre receives less than half the subsidy given to any other major dance company.
To deprive us further by killing off this young company would be a further erosion of our standard of living and a diminution of our culture. As north-west Members, we strongly protest about this threat to the Northern Ballet Theatre and we urge the Government not to act like Pontius Pilate, but to ensure that the company is not starved out of existence. As the Manchester Evening News reminded its readers, the Minister needs to be told in no uncertain terms that culture does not end north of Covent Garden. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said, we would like a positive answer tonight.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) on raising the very important topic of the Northern Ballet Theatre and its future and the much wider question of the funding of the Arts Council. The presence of nearly 18 hon. Members in the Chamber tonight is

impressive for any Adjournment debate and I acknowledge the importance that hon. Members are paying to this issue. I am also very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) is present tonight, because he has already made representations to me on this issue.
I understand the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Salford, East about the future of the Northern Ballet Theatre and I will return to that specific issue in a moment. First, I want to put the issue into its proper context in terms of the future of dance in this country and more generally against the whole question of arts funding.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East implied that the threat to the future of the Northern Ballet Theatre is a direct result of the Government's failure to fund the arts adequately. I cannot accept that because that view simply does not square with the facts.
Since taking office we have increased spending on the arts by one third in real terms after allowing for general inflation. Within that figure, our grant to the Arts Council has increased by 13 per cent. over the same period. An November 1987 I announced a new departure in arts funding. The figures for the arts budget were set for three years, providing cash increases of 10 per cent. for 1988–89 and 17 per cent. for the period to 1991.

Mr. Orme: Has the Minister taken into account the £25 million with regard to the abolition of the metropolitan counties?

Mr. Luce: When I quote figures, I will explain their context. The increase of 10 per cent. for the Arts Council this year over last year's figure and of 17 per cent. to 1991 is considerable.
On 3 November 1988 I announced the rolling forward of the three-year programme to 1991–92 with an expenditure increase of 6 per cent. over the period 1990–91. By any yardstick, those are substantial improvements. This is particularly important in the context of taxpayers' support. I entirely accept that the taxpayer has an important role to play in supporting the highest standards of excellence in the arts. However, this must also be seen against the background of the need for the private sector to play an increasingly important role.
I was glad that the right hon. Member for Salford, East mentioned the important part that sponsorship can play, but I hope that he will agree that, for the private sector, the size of the box office is even more important than sponsorship in generating extra revenue for the arts organisations—that is, in addition to taxpayers' support.
I should place on record that many of the most exciting developments that I have seen have taken place outside London. The right hon. Gentleman reinforced the point that many of the exciting developments are taking place in the north of the country and Scotland, in great cities such as Glasgow. We have been experiencing a renaissance in the arts in the great regional centres, with the emergence of Glasgow, Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester, as well as many other towns and cities, as the focus for renewed interest in every kind of artistic activity. That has been helped by a shift of resources to the regions.
In 1984, the Arts Council adopted its "Glory of the Garden" strategy to devolve more of its money and responsibilities to the 12 English regional arts associations The council's grant to the regional arts associations—excluding abolition money—has doubled in real terms since 1979–80, and today—including abolition—amounts


to £30 million. Within that context, the regional arts association now spends more than £3 million annually on dance and mime, in addition to the £11·5 million that is given by the Arts Council to dance in one form or another in this country.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the Minister's contention is that there is better national funding and the Arts Council has been more sensitive to regional needs, why is Northern Ballet under threat?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, but if he will allow me to develop my arguments he will find that I seek to answer it.
In 1987, I asked the Arts Council to earmark a certain proportion of its grant to increase touring in the regions. It set aside £1·5 million and, in the current financial year, its new Great Britain touring fund has financed, among other things, 12 weeks of dance—both classical and contemporary—in the regions. One hundred and twenty thousand pounds of this money has been made available to dance companies, and £30,000 of that to Northern Ballet. Dance has been able to play a significant part in this expansion. Audiences for classical ballet have increased and tent seasons have afforded reasonably priced seats and newer, younger audiences.
However, the picture is not entirely rosy. Audiences for modern dance have declined in recent years and there has been criticism of the classical touring circuit for lacking imagination and direction. This is part of the background to the independent report entitled "Stepping Forward", which was commissioned by the Arts Council, and which has brought about tonight's debate.
The main point that I would like to emphasise is that the report is not just about the Northern Ballet Theatre. It is an analysis of the whole range of dance in England and sets out a strategy for its future. In particular, it recognises that the Arts Council needs to resolve clients' uncertainties about what is expected of them, and to take on a strategic role in long-term planning. It recommends that the overall objective must be to create a healthy climate in which major touring companies—not all of them necessarily based in London—play in large theatres and are complemented by a range of smaller companies based in smaller-scale venues.
Within this overall context, the report examines the current activities of all the leading companies and makes a number of recommendations about their role. This includes an examination of Northern Ballet Theatre and its future.
I know that the Arts Council is conscious of the valuable work done by the Northern Ballet at theatres throughout England. Before April, there will have been time to examine all the options to ensure the future development of dance. The council also wishes to make it clear that at no time would it consider withdrawing funding from a regional client and directing it to London. Its priority is to increase support for regional work.
It is not my job to make artistic judgments. I would be subjected to much criticism if I sought to do that. It is a job for the Arts Council and its advisers. I do not fund arts organisations directly, either. I fund the arts on the arm's length principle adopted by successive Governments. I

allocate a sum of money to the Arts Council and it is for it to decide, after making its expert assessments, which groups to fund and what funding strategy to adopt.
I can say, however, that the Arts Council has not yet reached a decision on the recommendations in the report. That is the important point. Neither has it reached a decision on the Northern Ballet Theatre. The report was issued for consultation last month and the council will want to consider carefully all the representations that it has received before coming to a conclusion. I understand that so far a number of respondents have commented positively on the imaginative and comprehensive nature of the proposals.
Of course, concern has been expressed about the future of the Northern Ballet Theatre, and I am quite sure that the Arts Council will carefully note the views expressed in the House this evening. I shall go beyond that and ensure that the chairman and secretary general are made aware tomorrow of the views expressed here tonight.

Mr. Orme: Can the Minister confirm that the Arts Council has applied for an increased grant this year?

Mr. Luce: At this time of year, the Arts Council tends to come forward with proposals for funding for future years. I have not yet received its proposals, but I look forward to doing so.
The independent report is a welcome review of the provision of dance throughout England. This is not a matter of the north against the south, or London against the provinces. The Northern Ballet Theatre performs across the country. The right hon. Member for Salford, East and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) made that point forcefully. Other major companies perform regularly in the north-west. Sadler's Wells royal ballet and the London festival ballet hold regular seasons in Manchester, for example, and I and the Arts Council want that to continue and expand.
What must matter most to us is that excellence in all art forms should be available to a growing number of people throughout the country. That is why I have substantially increased the Arts Council's budget for supporting touring, and, in the context of dance, I have supported the move of the Sadler's Wells royal ballet to Birmingham, with a taxpayers' award of £500,000 to help the process. I want everyone to be able to share in the country's artistic heritage and strength. That is my major objective.
The policies of the Government are doing much to ensure that this is fulfilled, and I know that the Arts Council is determined to support us in this. Against that background, I will ensure that the House's views about the funding of the arts in all parts of England, and the tributes paid to the Northern Ballet, are well and clearly understood by the Arts Council.

Mr. James Lamond: The Minister mentioned that 18 Back Benchers were present to hear the debate. That is important. I want to explain why I have come, as my constituency is a little removed from the site of the Northern Ballet Theatre. I came to emphasise the spread of population surrounding this centre of culture in Manchester.
It is necessary to realise that this affair has implications far beyond the bounds of culture of the north-west. Oldham council puts out a brochure to attract


industrialists to the north-west and mentions the cultural activities there. We believe that if we are to attract major companies, their executives will be more willing to come to the area if we can provide the cultural activities to which they have been accustomed in the larger cities. Support for the arts is important for that reason, as well as being very important for culture itself.
I welcome the remarks made by the Minister, who has revealed a chink of hope. If he receives an application for an increase from the Arts Council, I sincerely hope that he will bear in mind the strength of feeling that exists among right hon. and hon. Members representing the north-west.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.